Thread: Purgatory: Penal Substitution Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001046

---

Posted by Tyler Durden (# 2996) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
PSA (propitiation) is one of the important models that centres on Christ being our substitute.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Heh ... that sent me delving into my copy of The Cross of Christ.

---

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.

---

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)

---

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.

---

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!)

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

quote:

---

You see, I don't think these matters are primarily about moral culpability.

---

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:

---

quote:

---

1. How is justice served if God suffers the punishment due to me for my sins?

---

quote:

---

2. If the punishment for my sins is eternal death why is God not eternally dead, as he suffered my punishment?

---

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>
 

---

Posted by Seán D (# 2271) on :
 
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.)
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
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.

---

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....

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I'm CV too! Just as a helpful model that rests on PSA having taken place.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Boopy (# 4738) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zwingli*:
I'm not sure what exactly non- penal atonement is, or if it even exists.

---

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...

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Alan, I think you are getting caught up in seeing PSA as merely a legal model. Its much more than that

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Ah, so that's where we're parting company. All is clear. Yes, I see PSA as a purely legal model. The "much more than that" (which we seem largely to agree on in terms of content) I see as different complementary models whereas you see them as part of the same model.

---

Sorry, was I being patronising there? I didn't mean to be, sorry.
The things is, most of the sacrificial ideas (eg the Passover, or the day of atonement) involve at the very least a variant of PSA don't they? In that they were substitutes for the people without which they would have had to face God's punishment?

Dyfrig, I'm so glad you think John Stott et al didn't pull PSA out of their rectums.
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Zwingli, jumping back to your post, there are several points here worthy of examination. To look at them in order:

1)

quote:

---

the idea that Christ paid a ransom to the Devil .... is a dangerous heresy

---

quote:

---

Paying a ransom ... 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.

---

quote:

---

To me, this sort of idea of "justice" seems to come from the depths of a sinful heart

---

Oh, and Seeker, for that post. Spot on, I believe.
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
More questions for the PSA advocates, if you don't mind:

I don't see how your view of PSA as central leaves any room in your soteriology for anything other than Universalism. If the sentence has been served, why is there a need to repent to appropriate the benefits of it?

[ 12. May 2004, 09:12: Message edited by: GreyFace ]
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Sorry, was I being patronising there? I didn't mean to be, sorry.

---

quote:

---

The things is, most of the sacrificial ideas (eg the Passover, or the day of atonement) involve at the very least a variant of PSA don't they? In that they were substitutes for the people without which they would have had to face God's punishment?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:


As I've said I don't see how any model of the atonement can be anything other than substitutionary in that Christ did something in our place as we'd either be unable to do it, or if we did it would be inadequate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fiddleback:
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.

---

Thank you. This one works for me but you explained it much better than my somewhat inarticulate effort. Turns out I had a theory all along without knowing it had a name!
 

---

Posted by Seán D (# 2271) on :
 
Hey all, had trouble logging in yesterday evening for some reason but I know you'll all be relieved to hear I am back now to give you my learned views

Lep I think you are doing your best with the material available to you and I am in agreement that the other models don't work unless there is something substitutionary going on, i.e. they require a foundation. For example, Abelard's subjective idea (that the cross demonstrates and reveals God's love so wonderfully that it convicts us of our sin and challenges us to turn back to God) relies on the cross actually being an act of love, so something else must be going on too. I also don't think Christus Victor covers all the bases as one is left with question of how Jesus defeats sin through the cross - surely his sinless life is much more important, whereas Paul seems to find the focus on the cross. (Someone will tell me Tillich and co have explanations for this but they don't satisfy me.) In other words, as Lep very acutely put it, whilst the cross does need to show how death and sin are dealt with it also must deal with the fact that God is rightly angry with sin (because if he wasn't he would be unloving). Therefore humans need to move from the category of "being under God's wrath" to "being once again in open fellowship with God". I certainly find this in Romans 1-3, where God's wrath is portrayed as the problem, culminating in the solution of Jesus' death in ch 3 (whether propitiatory or expiatory makes little difference since they have the same effect of making us people at whom God's wrath is no longer directed).

BUT I am still very unsatisfied with the substitutionary idea being a penal one. I honestly don't see it in the Bible - what texts did you have in mind?? Bear in mind they must correlate not only substitution but also penalty - there are some substitution texts (e.g. 2 Cor 5) and some penalty texts (e.g. Romans 3) but I'm really not convinced there are any which connect the two.

Zwingli I think you are incorrect because it can be substitutionary without being penal. The problem is precisely how is it just for Jesus to pay the punishment instead of us? That makes God seem arbitrary rather than loving ("I must have payment but I don't care who it is from"). As Jolly Jape has observed, for at least some of church history the cross was seen as a ransom paid to the devil, at times even a fake one to trap him!

Boopy - I don't think that model's heretical, to me it is just inadequate on it's own. Would you like to explain how it works to solve the problem of sin, death and God's loving anger against sin?

Greyface - one of the reasons I am pretty much a universalist is for exactly that reason
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:


I don't see how your view of PSA as central leaves any room in your soteriology for anything other than Universalism. If the sentence has been served, why is there a need to repent to appropriate the benefits of it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seán D:
Greyface - one of the reasons I am pretty much a universalist is for exactly that reason

---

Well, exactly - but what do you make of the insistence on the necessity of repentance throughout the bible?

I've no doubt I've missed something but my simple-minded view is that there are two ways of looking at it (I rule out hypercalvinism)

1. Universalism - calls to repentance are 'only' to improve the world as it stands now and have no bearing on individual salvation
2. Salvation occurs by God's grace through a process of repentance

Much as I hope all will be saved (not least because I'm probably nearer the bottom of the pile than the top when it comes to Christ-like qualities) I don't see it as being particularly biblical, so I pray for virtual universalism
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Sean, you wrote:

quote:

---

I am still very unsatisfied with the substitutionary idea being a penal one. I honestly don't see it in the Bible - what texts did you have in mind?? Bear in mind they must correlate not only substitution but also penalty - there are some substitution texts (e.g. 2 Cor 5) and some penalty texts (e.g. Romans 3) but I'm really not convinced there are any which connect the two.

---

quote:

---

But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

---

I don't believe that verse, standing alone, is sufficient evidence on which to build a theory of the Atonement, but I think it is the root verse without which PSA would never have developed as a theory.
 

---

Posted by Seán D (# 2271) on :
 
Hmmmm, Isaiah 53. Not sure about that - you've definitely got punishment, and substitution but the point is that the two are never connected into "he was punished instead of us". That is the crucial thing, in which I really think PS goes further than the Bible.

That's the issue with the proof texts thing too - I'm probably much more in the market for proof texts than most around here but the point is that PS can only be said to be biblical if it is representing what the Bible actually says, not if it conglomerates what the Bible says and draws (in my view, incorrect) conclusions.

For example: the doctrine of the Trinity is an attempt to make sense of the Bible's teaching that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are divine and yet fully persons distinct in some sense from God the Father.

This is very different to what I see as the merging of ideas within PS. The view that God punishes Jesus instead of punishing us I just cannot find.

I actually do believe in propitiation, but I don't see that it necessitates PS. Expiation can still vindicate God's character anyway because sin IS still punished (Jesus and we all still die!) and therefore God is seen to be just but because of the removal of sin God is no longer angry with humanity therefore it is not unjust of him to be in fellowship with us once again.
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
how CAN God expiate us unconditionally, while still vindicating himself?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seán D:


I actually do believe in propitiation, but I don't see that it necessitates PS. Expiation can still vindicate God's character anyway because sin IS still punished (Jesus and we all still die!) and therefore God is seen to be just but because of the removal of sin God is no longer angry with humanity therefore it is not unjust of him to be in fellowship with us once again.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:


To me there is a whole universe of injustice that PSA doesn't address. I'd see "God's Holy Spirit animiating his followers to put right what sin has made wrong" as another way of achieving justice. I really much prefer the Orthodox view of sin as disease.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Grey Face - I don't buy it for a million reasons that would take us down the road of that now rotting horse of inerrancy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Grey Face - I don't buy it for a million reasons that would take us down the road of that now rotting horse of inerrancy.

---

What exactly from what I said, don't you buy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I am happy to talk about PSA all day - I LOVE that doctrine, it is the lifespring of my Christian joy and assurance, but if I answer you we are going to go down the road of the character of God revealed in the OT. Which I don't think either of us can stand. Am I right?

---

quote:

---

But PSA doesn't say this isn't true! It merely says that the universe is ultimately about God's glory, and the cross is the ultimate display of his character, not just his justice, but also his utter willingness to humble himself for the sake of his creation and so on and so forth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seán D:

So it is still penal. I have no problem with Jesus bearing/sharing in/participating in the punishment for sin, with the effect that he bears the punishment instead of us. But this is very distinct from Jesus being punished by God instead of us to satisfy his demand for punishment for sin, which wouldn't work anyway because why should the punishment of another actually vindicate a loving and just God?

---

So it is penal. And it is substitutionary.
So, er....in what sense don't you believe in penal substitution exactly?
I think there are a number of texts that show Jesus is punished by God. Agreed?
There are a number that show that this was to deomnstrate his character. Agreed?
I'm not sure at what point our understanding diverges?

Your last question is answered by the Piperesque stuff - God demonstrates his reaction to sin - that is justice. I think.

[edited for poor spelling and grammar]

[ 12. May 2004, 11:12: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
 

---

Posted by Seán D (# 2271) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
So it is penal. And it is substitutionarly.
So, er....in what sense don't you believe in penal substitution exactly?

---

quote:

---

I think there are a number of texts that show Jesus is punished by God. Agreed?

---

quote:

---

There are a number that show that this was to deomnstrate his character. Agreed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:


I cannot see that a God who is able to forgive freely is in any way superior to one who can forgive only after the sin is punished, any more than if he were human and behaved in the same way. In fact, when we see such forgiveness offered by humans (and supremely by Christ) we usually assign a godly character to such a person.

---

As with the last time we are going round in ever decreasing circles.
Forgiveness is free - to us! I have said this. It does not cost us - in that sense God does give ultimate free forgiveness - free to us. It costs us nothing - God is the most benevolent forgiver.
Let's take your alcoholic. The best solution (and I can't think of one practically) would be
1) to unconditionally and toroughly help and forgive him
2) to do this in a way that costs him nothing. And the more it costs the helper the more noble we would think them.
This is PSA. Free unconditional forgiveness for the sinner at cost ONLY to the forgiver.
The extra bit can't be illustrated - that God is God. It is not only right that he be glorified, it is loving for him to display and vindicate his right character because we were made to rejoice in his glorious goodness and justice and love.
( I am sounding like a clone of the aforementioned Mr Piper)
This is why I love PSA because it demonstrates so may of God's amazing characteristics all at once, and brings us to rejoice in the fulness of his glorious character.
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seán D:
The problem lies in connecting the two. Yes it is penal (Jesus suffers punishment for sin),

---

quote:

---

This certainly involved God becoming angry with Jesus because Jesus took responsibility for all our sins and thus bore God's wrath for them. He owned up, as it were, and thus was able to vanquish the power of self-deceit and fantasy which sin has over us, whereby we cannot even realise we are culpable sinners

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Forgiveness is free - to us! I have said this. It does not cost us - in that sense God does give ultimate free forgiveness - free to us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:


If I haven't stretched your patience to breaking point, would you please confirm that you're in the hypercalvinist camp? You seemed to imply it earlier. Do people fail to be saved because God didn't want them to be saved?

---

My patience has no breaking point. No really, I hav reached total perfection. Can't you tell?

Hyper Calvinism, as I understand it, is the application of the doctrine of predestination to say that evangelism is not necessary, or part of the Christian's duty. In this sense I am not a hyper Calvinist.

I am however, a Calvinist - God desires everyone to know him in some sense 1 Timothy 2, but in some sense does not eg Romans 9. My theology merely reflects this tension.

I'm not even sure that one needs to adopt a Calvinist position to explain PSA - the Evangelical Arminian position would be, as I understand it, that God knew in advance who would turn to him, and punished Jesus for their sins in advance. Not being party to that knowledge we proclaim the Gospel to all, knowing that the death of Christ is completely effective for all who will trust repent. That's not a position that I feel particularly happy with myself, but I can see why people hold it.

Sean - the thing is I think the difference between us is so negligible as to be nothing.
You say God expiates us through Jesus death, allowing us to know him and himself to be propitiated. I say God is propitiated through Jesus death and hence expiates us.
Both are penal. Both are substitutionary. I think, that it is merely the language of "instead" you don't like - how is "Jesus is punished in our place" for you? I also think that your explanation doesn't really actually include propitiation at all - because God's anger just disappears when we become pure - whereas I think, that eg the day of atonement imagery shows that both of these processes need to happen.
I haven't abandoned Isaiah 53 as a key text - but as I said I don't think there needs to be a proof text - PSA is built on a number of concurrent concepts.

JJ - I suppose the difference between God and the emperor of Babylon is that God is God. It is wrong for the emperor of Babylon to seek the universe to revolve around his view of right and wrong. It is not wrong for God to seek this. I've been thinking more and more about this lately, hence my new sig. Suffice to say, I do not think it wrong, but loving for God to seek to display his love of holiness and revulsion of sin in the way that he rescues us at great cost to himself. This does not reduce his love for us, it magnifies it.
 

---

Posted by Boopy (# 4738) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seán D:

Boopy - I don't think that model's heretical, to me it is just inadequate on it's own. Would you like to explain how it works to solve the problem of sin, death and God's loving anger against sin?

---

Bother, I typed a long brilliant reply earlier and the computer ate it. Try again, but probably not brilliant this time.

Sean, I suppose I would say that sin and death are not so much problems to be solved, as part of the human condition to be worked through. Jesus' ultimate act of obedience and selflessness to God's call is our perfect model of how we might attempt to do this.
God's loving anger; well yes but I don't believe in the model of substitutionary and/or propitiatory sacrifice to deal with this. I prefer the model where in our own lives we can be channels for God's loving anger against sin when we stand up for justice, try to love our neighbour, and all those other umpteen difficult things. I suppose the model I'm describing is more about life as lived here and now. I like the model as described by Fiddleback; it seems adequate to me as it addresses the questions I'm asking. PSA/SA is answering questions that I'm not asking because they don't form part of my Christian universe, so to speak.

Does that make sense? Probably a bit woolly at this end of the day!
 

---

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
I too have composed several posts that I couldn't post today. It appears SOF is getting a lot of hits with respect to the on-line church. I'm too tired now to go back over everything.

Lep, I really do appreciate your patience in trying to answer all our questions.

quote:

---

God's loving anger; well yes but I don't believe in the model of substitutionary and/or propitiatory sacrifice to deal with this. I prefer the model where in our own lives we can be channels for God's loving anger against sin when we stand up for justice, try to love our neighbour, and all those other umpteen difficult things.

---

This is absolutely my view.

Lep, where I think you and I are disagreeing is that I don't get all this stuff about God having to vindicate himself. It is totally the implied "character of God" that I have a problem with.

PSA, as I understand it, was based on the concept of chivalrous honour which just seems sinful and un-divine to me. I can't "grok" that, I can't understand it in my gut. Having grown up in a PSA-only environment, I observed that this idea seemed to really touch a lot of people positively in their gut. That they got a real "Ah hah!" about God from it.

Whereas, for me, what I heard is "God is a petulent adolescent bully who has to slap someone aroung big-time before he can forgive. God hates you and will only let you into heaven because Jesus bribed him." All of which just served to prove that I wasn't destined to be saved, I think. (We didn't use the word "elect" because we were Lutherans and that's a Calvinist word. )

I'm wondering if PSA gives you some sort of "Ah hah!" moment about God and if you can somehow try to communicate that? Maybe it's a better way for us thickys to understand. I'd really like to at least understand from the other side, even if I don't agree (which I suspect I won't).
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:


I'm wondering if PSA gives you some sort of "Ah hah!" moment about God and if you can somehow try to communicate that? Maybe it's a better way for us thickys to understand. I'd really like to at least understand from the other side, even if I don't agree (which I suspect I won't).

---

quote:

---

I suppose the difference between God and the emperor of Babylon is that God is God. It is wrong for the emperor of Babylon to seek the universe to revolve around his view of right and wrong. It is not wrong for God to seek this. I've been thinking more and more about this lately, hence my new sig. Suffice to say, I do not think it wrong, but loving for God to seek to display his love of holiness and revulsion of sin in the way that he rescues us at great cost to himself. This does not reduce his love for us, it magnifies it.

---

Well I agree that God is God, and all that, but I'm not sure that means that what is fundamentally unjust (as opposed to merely unjust because of poor implementation) for a man can be just for God. The whole tenor of scripture, surely, is that we should become more God-like, be closer imitators of Christ. Yet on this issue, you seem to be implying that God is requiring a higher standard of justice from humans (ie don't punish a person for what they haven't done) than of himself (I'll punish Jesus/Jesus willingly accepts the punishment, fo someone/everyone elses sin). I don't see how this could possibly be regarded as just in any meaningful sense of the word.

Of course, I don't believe that God is bound to "justice", I don't accept that God needs in that sense, to demonstrate His character. He is His character. If you like, He is what He is, (I'm sure I've read that somewhere ) After all, who would he be demonstrating it to? And I certainly don't believe that anything within God's character constrained Jesus to die.

You see, PSA seems to me to come perilously close to saying that Jesus died, not for us, but for God, to get Him out of a cosmic cleft stick. And yes, to me, that does denigrate God's character; not his Love for us, per se, but certainly certainly his incomperable transcendance. It implies he is incapable of the moral greatness which, when we see it in humans, we recognise as humanity most clearly cast in God's image - that is to forgive without condition, to love without limit.

BTW, I was thinking of rewriting my .sig. I rather fancy Phillipians 2 vvs 6&7. What do you think?

[ 13. May 2004, 08:42: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Sorry Lep, cross-posted, and I guesss my last comment was a bit flippant in the light of your heartfelt post. Pax
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well I agree that God is God, and all that, but I'm not sure that means that what is fundamentally unjust (as opposed to merely unjust because of poor implementation) for a man can be just for God. The whole tenor of scripture, surely, is that we should become more God-like, be closer imitators of Christ. Yet on this issue, you seem to be implying that God is requiring a higher standard of justice from humans (ie don't punish a person for what they haven't done) than of himself (I'll punish Jesus/Jesus willingly accepts the punishment, fo someone/everyone elses sin). I don't see how this could possibly be regarded as just in any meaningful sense of the word.

---

Well, I'm not going to convince you - I know that.
But just to counter-act one undercurrent to your post, which I am sure you are not saying but I have heard some non-PSA people say.
The argument goes - God demands punishment for sin when it is right, therefore we are allowed to do the same - therefore PSA undermines the whole Christian morality of forgiveness.

What it models, for us in forgiveness is that when forgiving the cost must be to me. God absorbs the cost, the pain, of forgiveness and reconciliation into himself, and that is the model for Christian forgiveness.

Must we do it in a way, like God, that vindicates us?
No, for we are not God. It does not matter that my glory is not displayed in the way I forgive, but it matters that God's is. For he is God and must above all be glorified. Amazingly, in PSA he does this in a way that costs us nothing, even though we owe him everything.
Typing this post has just nearly made me
So will stop.
 

---

Posted by Seán D (# 2271) on :
 
Hello again folks

Lep you are da man for your humility and honesty I continue to think there is some difference between us though because of the "instead of" which I react against. Jesus bears our sin and therefore negates the need for God to be angry with us, but in so doing he participates in God's anger against sin. You are not the first person to think I am splitting hairs, if that's any consolation!!

Boopy - yes it does sound too woolly I suspect but can't be sure that maybe it would boil down to a difference in our understanding of the Bible's authority - you seem to regard the model of atonement you believe in as something which answers the questions you ask, whereas I prefer to think (perahps misguidedly!) that I am letting the Bible set the agenda. It tells me what the problem is, as well as the solution. Without revelation I wouldn't even know the problem!! Not that your view is unbiblical, or not influenced by the Bible - far from it. But because the Bible talks about the righteous, loving anger of God I can't ignore that the atonement must somehow also deal with this, as well as subjectively transforming humans. Both/and.

Seeker - the God vindicating himself stuff makes good sense in a larger framework: namely that God's passion for his righteousness and glory is actually the most supremely loving and compassionate attitude, because he is most glorified in the happiness and salvation of humanity. Piper takes some of this stuff a bit too far and over-systematises it (e.g. God is also glorified in damning some people by eternal predestination ) but his basic point is really good, imo. I can't remember the title of his main introductory book (Desiring God or something?) but it explains this very clearly (Lep will probably be able to supply the name!).
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
Here's something I'm interested in - for all the non PSA people posting here...which could include...oh yes, anyone except me!

What do you think when you hear PSA explained evangelistically, as let's face it, a large proprtion of those committed to proclamation evangelism see it as the central thing?
Do you think:
a) What terrible heresy - that person has totally misrepresented God to a lot of non-Christians
b) That's not altogether useful, but well done for trying, I'm sure God will use it.
c) That was a valid presentation of the Gospel, just not one I would have given.
d) Other?

Because I do believe that any explanation of the cross that does, at the very least, rest on PSA is lacking something. Do you feel the same about your preferred model?
I'm not asking this to point score. Rather, I really want to know.

PS Desiring God is Piper's keynote work - but I found it a bit hard work. "Let the Nations be Glad" or "The Pleasure of God" is my weapon of choice. Let's face it though, the man has many gifts, but most of his books say largely the same thing.

[ 13. May 2004, 09:32: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Lep, you wrote:

quote:

---

The argument goes - God demands punishment for sin when it is right, therefore we are allowed to do the same - therefore PSA undermines the whole Christian morality of forgiveness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
What do you think when you hear PSA explained evangelistically, as let's face it, a large proprtion of those committed to proclamation evangelism see it as the central thing?
Do you think:
a) What terrible heresy - that person has totally misrepresented God to a lot of non-Christians
b) That's not altogether useful, but well done for trying, I'm sure God will use it.
c) That was a valid presentation of the Gospel, just not one I would have given.
d) Other?

---

Hmmm, can I pick all four (or is that "other"?).

If PSA is presented as the whole gospel story then it misrepresents God. Likewise, a presentation which which totally excludes PSA also misrepresents God. In my opinion, of course.

The biggest problem with PSA is that it simply doesn't connect with peoples experience. People just don't regularly pay a death penalty on behalf of others, especially people they don't know. Though there is scope for connecting it with ideas of people "taking the rap" for a crime they didn't do to protect a loved one, I'm not sure that quite fits PSA. In PSA you're talking about something that happens after the court has sat and pronounced "guilty", whereas the taking the rap scenario is where justice is actually not done because the guilt of the true criminal is never known.

Other models do connect to peoples experience a lot better. People know about medicine, so maybe likening the Cross to an organ donor who in death gives life to another. People watch war movies and would recognise the soldier taking the blast from a grenade to save his comrades.
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Lep, answering your question:

b) (most of the time, unless I'm feeling crochety

No, seriously, I welcome any honest attempt to communicate something of the wonder of Jesus to any non-christian, (something, I have to say, that I find incredibly difficult) but I do worry about the overtones of PSA in as much as (and I know you don't agree) it can make God seem like an unjust tyrant.

The difficulty wit a CV approach is not so much that I feel it is in any way inadequate, but that it's much more difficult to explain than PSA
. The easy way to understand Jesus work on the cross is that he was doing battle with Satan, but to yer average non-christian joe in the street this would be meaningless. So there is a tendency to get lost in the metaphysics. I quite like the analogy of vaccination - that Jesus suffers and overcomes the disease of sin, and he can impart his "antibodies", his risen life, into us. But I agree it's not as handy as the Bridge.

Overall, though, I think I would go for personal testimony, rather than an explanation of the atonement, as my preferred method.
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
That should, of course, have read "unless I'm feeling crotchety"

Goes away, muttering, "knit one, purl one...."
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
We both agree that the cross is both the ultimate demonstation of the humility of God, and the ultimate demonstation of His glory (though I would see humility and glory as the same thing, where perhaps you would not).

I don't see that anything of which you have so eloquently witten is lessened in any way by not holding to a penal Atonement theory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
What do you think when you hear PSA explained evangelistically, as let's face it, a large proprtion of those committed to proclamation evangelism see it as the central thing?

---

Can I answer outside the tick boxes? I hate it when questionnaires pick my answers for me

Any evangelistic attempts like that make me feel pride (in the nice way) that someone's attempting it, and mild panic... I'll explain.

It depends how it's done, to be honest. I've said before, I think, that I've seen a fair few evangelistic tracts that conform to what I like to call PSA For Dummies. They say something like, God is perfectly good, he therefore has condemned us all to Hell because none of us are totally perfect, but he crucified his Son instead, hooray!

Without the Trinity, without the expansion of PSA that you've given eloquently enough here (and thank you for it) this can only lead the reader into thinking that God (the Father) hates our guts and that Jesus foiled his plan which persuaded God that what he was doing was wrong, which makes it impossible to love God or to believe that he loves us. Two responses arise - the first (universalist) is, "Oh, so everything's fine again? Thanks for telling me, bye" and the second (non-universalist) is "So God wants to send me to Hell if I don't do exactly what he wants? That's not very loving!". It's never (for people I've talked to) provided an opening for them to see God's love, rather it's either been seen as nonsense or required a damage limitation exercise.

What I think should be, in fact, central to evangelism, is the CV view that Jesus died to rescue us - and as you note, PSA For Grownups does not contradict this, but for me it's a development of doctrine that adds too many questions about the loving nature of God, and if presented in the For Dummies way is a horrible misrepresentation of the Gospel. Now, the plain fact that PSA does *not* lead people who believe it's fundamental, such as yourself, into at best grudging respect and at worst active hatred of God, shows to me that it might even be true - but not, very definitely not, the For Dummies version.

Just to add context, thinking back, I'm pretty sure what began to lure me in initially, was the promise of eternal life (not perpetual existence, the whole deal), that is to say coming from the proclamation of the risen Christ, not the crucified one, of the defeat of death and sin and all the rest of it on which CV focusses. But that's a statistical sample of one.

quote:

---

Because I do believe that any explanation of the cross that does, at the very least, rest on PSA is lacking something. Do you feel the same about your preferred model?

---

quote:

---

I (you won't like this but hear me out) must submit to his all glorious, all powerful character, and accept that the whole of everything, and history as he has planned it is about Him, and his amazing glory being displayed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
Lep: I don't really understand, but thanks for having the patience to try to explain it. I really appreciate your patience.

Can I say one thing about this:

quote:

---

I (you won't like this but hear me out) must submit to his all glorious, all powerful character, and accept that the whole of everything, and history as he has planned it is about Him, and his amazing glory being displayed.

---

I would actually agree with the above statement.

I may be definitionally rebellious in your terms (that's making an assumption and forgive me if it's not your view) by not accepting your view of PSA, but my intent is to obey and submit to God and I pray this frequently.

---

I totally respect that. I try not to think of people as definitionally rebellious. Except in the sense that we are all this way!
In short then, to try and make myself clearer, I subscribe to PSA because it (ISTM) places an achievment by God, FOR God at the centre of the atonement. As such, while other models are valid (and I do not dispute the validity of CV, although I have some questions about moral influence/Abelard) that is why, AFAICS, PSA remains the central model. Because it is about God achieving something for himself.
 

---

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
Lep, I think I've understood you as far as I'm able to. I think I understand it at a "head level". I'm trying to understand it at a deeper level, but I can't. I think I've gone as far as I'm going to go with this for now.

You are certainly one of the most gracious articulators of this theory I've encountered in a long time and I really do appreciate the fact that you've let us all "gang up on you" like this.

As to your question about what do I think when I hear someone telling non-Christians "Jesus died to pay the price of your sins"? I think "I'll bet that person hasn't got a clue what s/he's talking about". If the person goes on to explain I think "I'll bet that person thinks that Christians worship an immoral God". Sorry, that's an honest answer but I also think that it's a view that the non-Christian media has a stake in perpetuating. And I think it's a view that many non-Christians, who have never been exposed to "real Christianity" have of Christianity.

Not saying that I'm the world's greatest evangelist, but I don't think that's the best way to evangelise anyway. And I'll be a lot of PSA proponents don't think it's the best way to evangelise either. I think the best way for most people to evangelise is to make friends and to be attentive to the opportunities that God presents and to meet people in their need. Very few people are gifted with the gift of stranger evangelism.
 

---

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
Sorry, I didn't really answer your question. I'm happy to hold SA in equal tension with other theories. I'm absolutely not convinced there is much in the bible that tells us anything about SA being a specifically penal model and I think that a civil model seems more in line with what I read in the bible. But, that said, I'm happy to include "tradition" as a subsidiary source of Christian doctrine so quibbling about penal or civl isn't enough for me to cry "heresy!"

What I can't do is make either SA or PSA the central model to which all other theories contribute. I also think that it's not only the cross which affects atonement but the combination of incarnation+teaching+life witness+cross+resurrection+ascension in some form, I know not what or how.
 

---

Posted by Callan. (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

In short then, to try and make myself clearer, I subscribe to PSA because it (ISTM) places an achievment by God, FOR God at the centre of the atonement. As such, while other models are valid (and I do not dispute the validity of CV, although I have some questions about moral influence/Abelard) that is why, AFAICS, PSA remains the central model. Because it is about God achieving something for himself.

---

quote:

---

Any model that merely talks of God "setting aside" is usrely God "setting aside" something of himself, and so not adequately reflecting himself.

---

I am interested in how you think this squares with the incarnation. A Jesus who was omnipotent and omniscient would not be fully human. To become human Jesus had to set aside some divine attributes.

As we have crossed swords on a number of occasions, can I thank you for your contributions to this thread which have been excellent, btw.
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan.:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

In short then, to try and make myself clearer, I subscribe to PSA because it (ISTM) places an achievment by God, FOR God at the centre of the atonement. As such, while other models are valid (and I do not dispute the validity of CV, although I have some questions about moral influence/Abelard) that is why, AFAICS, PSA remains the central model. Because it is about God achieving something for himself.

---

Hmmm. I am open to correction but I would have thought that the whole point of the atonement was for our benefit, not God's.

---

quote:

---

I am interested in how you think this squares with the incarnation. A Jesus who was omnipotent and omniscient would not be fully human. To become human Jesus had to set aside some divine attributes.

---

But that is the great thing about the incarnation, passion, resurrection, penetecost. God, as a Trinity displayed his humility, his passionate love for us, AND his awesome holiness and justice. Yes Jesus, as such, did the humble bit, if I can put it like that without blasphemy. But Jesus is in some sense God the Father humbling himself. God humbles himself, but does not, as Trinity, make himself less than he is. Because this would be a failure to display his true glory in the world.

Right, I am babbling now.

The ganging up has all been most gentle. Thanks.

[Edited for quote UBB.]

[ 13. May 2004, 13:10: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
Made a horlicks of the UBB. Soz.
 

---

Posted by Boopy (# 4738) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seán D:


Boopy - yes it does sound too woolly I suspect but can't be sure that maybe it would boil down to a difference in our understanding of the Bible's authority - you seem to regard the model of atonement you believe in as something which answers the questions you ask, whereas I prefer to think (perahps misguidedly!) that I am letting the Bible set the agenda. It tells me what the problem is, as well as the solution. Without revelation I wouldn't even know the problem!! Not that your view is unbiblical, or not influenced by the Bible - far from it. But because the Bible talks about the righteous, loving anger of God I can't ignore that the atonement must somehow also deal with this, as well as subjectively transforming humans. Both/and.

---

Yes, spot on; I think we probably do have different views of the bible's authority which leads us to different conclusions. Thanks for your gracious contributions which have helped me to formulate my thoughts. I'll stick with the woolly model though!

[Edited for quote UBB.]

[ 14. May 2004, 00:51: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 

---

Posted by Zwingli* (# 4438) on :
 
A few times now I have been unable to post what I had written out or couldn't get onto this thread; Ship hit some rough waters I think. Sorry to those I haven't gotten back to after they quoted me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seán D:
[The problem lies in connecting the two. Yes it is penal (Jesus suffers punishment for sin), yes it is substitutionary (Jesus makes peace with God because we are not able to). But penal substitution connects these two ideas in a way which I don't believe the Bible does, by making it Jesus being punished instead of us. It is much more biblical to say that Jesus bears our sin and thus is punished as a sinner. It is the conglomeration of these ideas I object to, not the holding of these ideas in tension.

<snip>

Love and justice meet together on the cross. No argument there. The question is, did it take place by God punishing Jesus instead of punishing us, so that he didn't punish us? The answer to that for me is no.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zwingli*:


The short answer is, all sins are ultimately against God and him alone. No matter how much I sin against you I cannot take anything from you (whether I take your life or your possessions or anything else) that God has not given you and which he is not free to take away if he so desires. In essence we deserve nothing more than eternal destruction; anything more is a blessing from God which he has every right to take away whenever he chooses.

---

quote:

---

But that is the great thing about the incarnation, passion, resurrection, penetecost. God, as a Trinity displayed his humility, his passionate love for us, AND his awesome holiness and justice. Yes Jesus, as such, did the humble bit, if I can put it like that without blasphemy. But Jesus is in some sense God the Father humbling himself. God humbles himself, but does not, as Trinity, make himself less than he is. Because this would be a failure to display his true glory in the world.

---

quote:

---

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death--
even death on a cross!

---

quote:

---

The just and gentle chosen one would triumph o'er the fall,
And conquer, by His own defeat,
And win by losing all.

Michael Card, "Vicit Agnus Noster" (c) Sparrow Music

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:


As to your second point, well, of course Jesus is now glorified with the Father. But is He any more glorious as pantokrator than as suffering servant, or is He pantokrator because He is, as He was, suffering servant, and that is how the Father chooses to rule the universe? What if "weakness" really is strength, and not merely a means to strength, if Jesus was exalted to the highest place, not as a reward for His humility, but as a consequence of His humility, because that is how the universe is made? Would that not be a paradox worthy of the God of the paradox.

---

quote:

---

The short answer is, all sins are ultimately against God and him alone. No matter how much I sin against you I cannot take anything from you (whether I take your life or your possessions or anything else) that God has not given you and which he is not free to take away if he so desires. In essence we deserve nothing more than eternal destruction; anything more is a blessing from God which he has every right to take away whenever he chooses.

---

To me, this suggests that it "doesn't matter" what happens to God's creatures. I submit that there are many biblical references, too numerous to mention, that suggest that Gods cares very much what happens to his creatures. Which suggest that it does matter what happens to his creatures. Which suggests that God suffers from sin but that is also matters to God that human beings also suffer when they are sinned against. If someone gratuitiously tortures me, I believe that my mental and physical pain matter to God. It isn't just that God is angry because his law has been broken.

Ideas like this, plus the implied subordinationationism of "separating" Jesus as the Christ from the Father are getting close to the impression of a cold, uncaring God. One can say "For him to defend his glory is love" all one wants, but all this implication that God does not stand in relationship with either Godself or with his creation give the impression that his primary (definitionally self-decided) raision d'etre is to Be Glorious rather than to be in relationship. If he were human, we might start diagnosing this God as a narcissist.
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Sorry to have been so long gettikng back on this. Been trying unsuccessfully to board all afternoon. Bl@$*%y dial-ups!

Lep, I don't think I quite see my position in your summary, but I can easily see how you could come to that conclusion. I'll really have to think hard to give you a defin itive account of my position, but for a provisional account, how about this.

I would see a difference between what we might call God's character, which are attempts to describe what He does , and God's nature, which is a view of what He is. The former category consists of things such as His omniscience, His justice, his holiness etc. In other words, His, for want of a better term, behaviour. The latter category would be things such as Love, Humility etc. Now my position is that the former are merely detailed outworkings of the latter, and, if there is an apparent conflict between the two, then that is due to our lack of understanding of the meaning of the former. Thus, if, to use the case in point, it would seem to us impossible to reconcile God's justice with the forgiveness of sin without punishment (which I don't think is true, even on a human level, btw) then that is because we do not understand what is meant by God's justice, which is, in fact, just some aspect of His nature being worked out. Similarly, if (as I do not) one were to consider that it is possible for God's holiness to be compromised by association with sinners, that is because of our flawed understanding of holiness, because that, to, is just a particular operational outworking of God's Love/humility.

I hope that makes some sort of sense.

Of course, the bit of this schema that is tricky is working out what is God's nature, and what is his character. But more anon.

Seeker, once more, spot on.
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:


Ideas like this, plus the implied subordinationationism of "separating" Jesus as the Christ from the Father are getting close to the impression of a cold, uncaring God. One can say "For him to defend his glory is love" all one wants, but all this implication that God does not stand in relationship with either Godself or with his creation give the impression that his primary (definitionally self-decided) raision d'etre is to Be Glorious rather than to be in relationship.

---

quote:

---

If he were human, we might start diagnosing this God as a narcissist.

---

quote:

---

I'm not even sure that one needs to adopt a Calvinist position to explain PSA - the Evangelical Arminian position would be, as I understand it, that God knew in advance who would turn to him, and punished Jesus for their sins in advance. Not being party to that knowledge we proclaim the Gospel to all, knowing that the death of Christ is completely effective for all who will trust repent. That's not a position that I feel particularly happy with myself, but I can see why people hold it.

---

quote:

---

But that is the great thing about the incarnation, passion, resurrection, penetecost. God, as a Trinity displayed his humility, his passionate love for us, AND his awesome holiness and justice.

---

You missed the Ascension .

Yes, I've been waiting for those things to be mentioned. I think that one of my biggest problems with PSA is the fact that the Resurrection seems (in the explanations I've heard of it at least) to be tacked on the end as a demonstration that Jesus' death worked but have no significance in and of itself. Whereas to me the death and resurrection are inseparable and the resurrection is integral to the act of atonement. Death's sting is removed by the resurrection rather than just at the cross as Lep wrote:

quote:

---

Death has lost its sting at the cross - eternal life lies beyond it, but it is the final enemy to be defeated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
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?

---

quote:

---

Sorry, who has been separating Christ from God? I have been at pains to show that actually my understanding of PSA is rooted in strong doctrine of the Trinity - Jesus IS God the Father humbling himself - as I've said before. Who is this criticism levelled at?

---

quote:

---

v6 also makes clear that there is a fundamental difference between Jesus and God - as Jesus did not grasp "equality with God". As such there must have been some way in which some part of the godhead made itself less than another part, while the other part remained glorified. If you see what I mean.

---

quote:

---

God is not human. It would be narcissistic for a human to behave that way, it is not for God - this is a key part of his transcendence.

---

quote:

---

The anthropomorphism you are using is extremely unehlpful,

---

quote:

---

If indeed, as you are suggesting, you do not see the prime purpose of the Gospel, and creation as being the mainfestation of God's glory, then (as well as being a bit confusing, because you agreed with this when I said it before) we are indeed poles apart - for this will always be my bottom line.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GraceCantsin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
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?

---

From a mystical viewpoint, Jesus our sacrificial Lamb is always dying for our sins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GraceCantsin:
From a mystical viewpoint, Jesus our sacrificial Lamb is always dying for our sins.

---

This rather flies in the face of the the idea of Christ's once-for-all sacrifice for the human race, though.

---

quote:

---

The thing is, what if there was _no_ sacrifice as a consequence of sin? If the wages of sin are not death? While the forgiveness aspect of that seems positive, it seems it might destroy any fundamental morality of the universe.

---

quote:

---

I most certainly do believe that creation is a manifestation of God's glory. What I think we disagree profoundly on is what "a manifestation of God's glory" is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
That doesn't sound like an Arminian position to me. The talk of God knowing in advance etc means it sounds like a Calvinist justification for evangelism (in fact it is remarkably similar to justifications I have heard Calvinists give). The point of Arminianism is that salvation is open to all. As Wesley wrote (in Father, whose everlasting love hymn 520 in Hymns and Psalms)

For those who will not come to him
The ransom of his life was paid.

---

quote:

---

The world (and us as part of the world) is a mess as a consequence of our sin and God loves the world and is redeeming it and the heart of that redemption is Jesus' death and resurrection.

---

quote:

---

Equally, after the posting on this thread, I'm left with the impression that our salvation could have been achieved by Jesus appearing fully grown and being killed (possibly by the devil). What role does the incarnation have in the atonement under PSA? Is it just that Jesus needed to be sinless?

Carys

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The alternative is, of course to say, that God didn't know, or that the atonement is effective for all regardless, but then ISTM your choices are open theism - God doesn't know the future, or universalism, which, as Grey Face as said, is hardly consonant with the Biblical call to repentance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

You see, I have great difficulty with the idea that God should commend a certain attitude to life, of humility, forgiveness, mercy, even justice, should enjoin us to pursue these things in imitation of Him, and yet behave in a manner that denies this. A right act is a right act, whether the act-or is God or a man. Right and wrong don't change their meaning between man and God. If that is anthropomorphic, then I plead guilty, but would say in mitigation that I don't see what other means God would want us to employ to understand Him. Jesus was a man, we are told to imitate Him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
but then ISTM your choices are open theism - God doesn't know the future, or universalism, which, as Grey Face as said, is hardly consonant with the Biblical call to repentance.

---

quote:

---

Anyway, to get back to the topic, in the case of PSA, I am not sure this provides any problem. It gives us the model of "forgive at great cost to yourself". It gives us the model "seek justice". It gives us the model "seek the display of God's awesome character"

---

quote:

---

I think, you think, that I am saying PSA would justify us acting for our own glory, to vindicate our own character. No.
Only for God's glory, and that does rest in appreciating his "otherness" from us. And that is just self evident to me. That is the wonder of the incarnation, that God, WHO IS UNIQUE, became man.

---

quote:

---

If we think PSA is a justification for us to forgive only in a way that protect OUR integrity, then we fail to appreciate the ultimate importance of God's integrity, and the ultimate insignificance of ours. And I think if we fail to see that it is right for God to seek to display his awesome holiness, as well as his astounding humility, then there is something very lacking in our understanding of his character.

---

quote:

---

The other aspect of your post that I find I cannot accept is ironically, the difficulty I have with Anselm's theory of atonement, that you seem to consider God bound by a moral standard outside himself. IMO, all of our love of morality and rightness comes from God, and the ultimate standard of morality is HIM. That is why I believe that "moral acts" outside of faith in Christ are useful, but in the end don't bring us to know God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well this would be true, except that I don't see that a) what God means by justice is the same as the common meaning, and in particular that God's justice is inherently meshed with punishment, as PSA demands. I would see it as restorative, as per Seekers excellent post,
and b)PSA, where an innocent party is punished for someone elses sins is, I suggest, by any normal or scriptural definition of the word, unjust.

---

quote:

---

Put it this way, I'm not telling God how He should behave, denying His transcendance, as much as saying that I believe that, in Jesus, He has shown me what He is like, and that He is a reliable guide to the character of the Father.

---

quote:

---

Not really sure what you mean here. It's not so much a question of whether it's right for God to do these things, as whether he does seek to do them. I certainly agree that the effect is that these aspects of His character are indeed displayed (though, as we have noted, we might have some differences on how those terms are understood), but I'm by no means convinced that this is His motivation.

---

quote:

---

I must confess myself confused by this. Your summary is precisely the reverse of my argument. For PSA to be necessary (ie for Christ to have to be punished at Calvary) then it must mean that God is constrained by the "law". Wheras the law is merely our imperfect understanding of an aspect of His nature. I really don't see that saying that God is able to forgive a sin without the need for that sin to be punished is equivalent to saying that God is subject to an external necessity.

---

Because you are saying that God must be constrained by OUR understanding of justice. I am saying he defines justice as HIMSELF being glorified, even where we do not accept it as just. PSA does not say that God is constrained by the law (contra Anslem). It says the law is an expression of God's character. God is only constrained by himself, not death, not our choice, not our hard hearts. It is this view of God that leads me down the road called PSA ville.
 

---

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 

quote:

---

That is why I believe that "moral acts" outside of faith in Christ are useful, but in the end don't bring us to know God.

---

quote:

---

Is this moral relatvism, as Seeker says? No it is not, because as long as the ultimate standard to be displayed is the glory of a loving humble and just God, and as long as I understand that I am NOT him, and therefore cannot take his roles upon myself (contra, eg the suicide bomber) then Christiam morality is demonstrated, not undermined.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
This is interesting. Is this a personal belief or a Reform one? (I ask genuinely as I don't know a lot about Reform theology).

---

quote:

---

My problem is I cannot view as "just" a God who thinks that destruction secures Justice. I cannot view as "humble" a God who seeks nothing other than his glorification. To have words and concepts that literally mean opposite things when God does them and we do them, is either relativism or it is nonsense.

---

quote:

---

To me, God seeks to bring about Justice by changing human hearts to encourage us to do what is right and repair the damage of Injustice. When that is not possible, God stands in solidarity in pain and suffering with us. To me, God's humility is expressed in giving his creation life and holding it in being when there is no "requirement" to do so; it's all wonderfully gratuitious. He wants to be in relationship with us because he wants to be in relationship with us - not because he needs someone to see his glory.

---

quote:

---

ISTM in the Bible that sin IS always linked to punishment. I studied theories of punishment at university, and ISTM, that any theory rests on their being some punitive link between sin and retribution.

---

Well, my University eductation was much more centred on microwave (EMR, that is, not the cookers . But whilst punisment is, or should always be, linked to sin, (ie you shouldn't be punished for what you haven't done) ISTM that there is no per se reason for the reverse to be true. Because theories of punishment CAN be built on a link between sin and retribution, it does not mean that they should, or that, if they are, such theories are valid.

As for the OT revelation of God as being wrathful, I think we would stray to far into the realm of the rotting equines to pursue this. But for the benefit of those poor benighted sould who haven't slogged through the 30 or so pages on inerrancy, I believe that the OT revelation was radically reassesed by the reality of Christ. It wasn't so much that God was angry with sinners, as that sin and limited revelation distorted the view of those in the OT. It wasn't that God couldn't abide sin, but that sinful people couldn't abide holiness.

quote:

---

depends on what you think the point of the punishment is. If, as you have indicated, you don't think "the sentence being served" is important, but rather ONLY the effect of punishment on the offender, then substitution makes no sense. ISTM that God thinks "the sentence" is very important.

---

quote:

---

The fact that he presents the sacrifice himself, to himself, of himself makes him more loving (and more committed to our restoration) rather than less.

---

quote:

---

And was Jesus never concerned to vindicate himself? I think he was.

---

quote:

---

Even, in fact, his demonstration of humility, was a self vindication, because he wanted to show people something of God's character in it. Again we had this discussion on the last thread.

---

quote:

---

I think its more complex than "Jesus was humble". He who said
"my yoke is easy and my burden is light" also said "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." Was that glory, Jesus had before the world began just humility? I think not.

---

quote:

---

You see, what is his motivation then? To love and accept us? He could have done that without the cross. To defeat death? He could have done that without the cross. To move us to love him? He could have done that without the cross. What he couldn't do was ALL of those things AND display his justice.

---

quote:

---

Because you are saying that God must be constrained by OUR understanding of justice. I am saying he defines justice as HIMSELF being glorified, even where we do not accept it as just.

---

NONONONO!!!!! That is precisely what I am not saying. It is the proponents of PSA who say that the nature of justice constrains God to act in a certain way. I am saying that we cannot know what the fulness of Justice means in God's eyes. It is not MY understanding of justice, which I accept is limited, which I am seeking to, in some way, impose on God. But the one thing I would (and indeed, do) bet my life on, is that the divine concept of justice, as revealed by Jesus, is higher than any human standard. It is more restorative, more perfect, than can be thought up by the human mind. So it is reasonable, I think, to infer that, since Jesus is so concerned that we don't take retribution or insist on our vindication, this is at least the closest we can get to God's justice. Of course, it will be a great deal more wonderful than we can concieve, but it will certainly not be less than we , through the Spirit's inspiration, aspire to.

Does this not make any sense. I have tried to be as clear as I can on this matter. If we are to judge concepts such as justice at all, we must, surely, have some reference point. Mine is the life of Jesus. If he doesn't condemn, as far as I can see that means that God does not condemn.
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
It is the proponents of PSA who say that the nature of justice constrains God to act in a certain way. I am saying that we cannot know what the fulness of Justice means in God's eyes. It is not MY understanding of justice, which I accept is limited, which I am seeking to, in some way, impose on God. But the one thing I would (and indeed, do) bet my life on, is that the divine concept of justice, as revealed by Jesus, is higher than any human standard. It is more restorative, more perfect, than can be thought up by the human mind. So it is reasonable, I think, to infer that, since Jesus is so concerned that we don't take retribution or insist on our vindication, this is at least the closest we can get to God's justice. Of course, it will be a great deal more wonderful than we can concieve, but it will certainly not be less than we , through the Spirit's inspiration, aspire to.

Does this not make any sense. I have tried to be as clear as I can on this matter. If we are to judge concepts such as justice at all, we must, surely, have some reference point. Mine is the life of Jesus. If he doesn't condemn, as far as I can see that means that God does not condemn.

---

quote:

---

I have no idea. I have never had anything to do with Reform

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

quote:

---

I have no idea. I have never had anything to do with Reform

---

Oh, please. Do I really need to say "reform theology"? I wasn't talking about the organisation.

---

quote:

---

And yet the mystery of the Gospel is that God achieves his own glory in the most wonderfully humble way. And that is why I love this doctrine for it reveals the essence of God - wonderfully humble yet awesomely glorious. Myabe this is nonsense, in the same way that the Trinity is nonsense - 3 and one, or the incarnation is nonsense - God and man. So be it. I love this nonsense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
So why not love Satan, then? Seriously. You love a God who hurts people in an infinite way? This is what I don't get. Why on earth do I want to worship someone like that? In that case, give me the Greek or Roman gods. At least I have a chance to appeal to a god who is basically good over a god who is basically evil or capricious.

---

quote:

---

Yep. You see, I see it differently. God needed nothing - the Trinitarian relationship was perfect from eternity. He did not need our relationship or our praise.
Yet God chooses to order history such that we, privileged creatures can be caught up in his glory. This is an immense act of grace on his part. And he does not do it because he has a need that we can fulfil, he does it because it shows again his wonderful character. If he renounces or minimises his glory in the way that he does that, then he is not being loving to us - for we are missing out on what we are made to share in.

---

quote:

---

Incidentally, your theory still fails to account for the holiness of God. The whole Biblical witness suggests that God's reaction to sin, the outworking of his holiness in relation to it, is destructive.
How can God come to us, lve in us no less, change our hearts, make us work for justice, if his burning holiness towards sin in the OT (and indeed portrayed throughout the NT in various places) brought destruction?
The various answers floated - the OT is wrong about God's character, God changed his mind, somehow Jesus contradicts this revelation even though he went out of his way NOT to do that I don't accept. PSA answers this question.

---

quote:

---

I'm not being rude. No really, I'm not, but I don't see what this comment has to do with anything we are discussing here. I don't think I made any mention of hell did I?

All I was doing is pointing out that God's character is complex, and nowhere is that complexity more revealed in his simultaneous self humbling and self glorification at the cross. How is that evil or capricious?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

quote:

---

The thing is, what if there was _no_ sacrifice as a consequence of sin? If the wages of sin are not death? While the forgiveness aspect of that seems positive, it seems it might destroy any fundamental morality of the universe.

---

I see wisely-administered punishment as being useful as a teaching tool in some contexts. I do not see it as achieving Justice. If we cease to know and to teach morality, fundamental morality will disappear. Killing someone in the name of our alleged morality doesn't achieve justice. Only righting the wrong achieves Justice (and sometimes Justice cannot be achieved because the wrong can't be righted.)

---

quote:

---

But it is certainly a fact that the person who is not afraid to die is radically free. He is radically free to be a suicide bomber and do radical evil. He is also radically free to lead people in protest and do radical good.

---

quote:

---

Going from the idea that justice involves a kind of balancing, I could imagine justice being served in a way did not repair a specific wrong. You could consider exactly the same wrong being inflicted on the wrongdoer (eye for eye) as just - even though the damage is doubled. I don't think that justice, in itself, is by definition good or productive, although good and productive things might have to be just.

---

quote:

---

In terms of the morality thing, though, I wasn't thinking of punishment but of consequence, which could be utterly unjust.

---

quote:

---

If I sin, it's usually someone else who gets hurt. I was thinking that the essential relationship might be that a link exists between the class of actions called sin and bad consequences. Since, otherwise, sin seems to become an arbitrary concept.

---

quote:

---

So, if God prevented the consequences of sin, He'd remove that relationship and thereby remove the meaning of sin. So the crucifiction wouldn't be necessary because someone had to be punished, but because sin had to have an evil consequence, in the ultimate case the murder of God. God didn't crucify Jesus, we did. The sacrifice was implicit in the incarnation, given omniscience.

---

quote:

---

Presumably, God could have conceivably prevented the evil consequence of sin, namely the crucifiction. But if He had, He would have taken away the meaning of sin, and hence perhaps the opportunity for repentance. Preventing the crucifiction might have been the ultimate temptation of God, even.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

quote:

---

[Citing Thomas W]
Presumably, God could have conceivably prevented the evil consequence of sin, namely the crucifiction. But if He had, He would have taken away the meaning of sin, and hence perhaps the opportunity for repentance. Preventing the crucifiction might have been the ultimate temptation of God, even.

---

Interesting idea!

---

quote:

---

It makes sense. But it is simply faulty logic. It rests on 3 IMO, mistaken assumptions.
1) We have discussed before. Whether Jesus "never condemned". Which I am pretty sure he did sometimes.
2)Discussed before as well. That we should understand Jesus as rewriting the OT rather than fulfilling it.

3) is the one I am most interested in - that God would only require us to behave in a way that he behaves.
You see, this is why the underlying principle for me is the glory of God. For us to act in line with God's glory and for him to act in line with his glory is not the same. For us to respect him as creator and for him to act as creator will look different in practice.

Let's take an example. "Thou shalt not kill" It is wrong for us creatures made in God's image to decide to remove another of God's creatures from life. However, even in the New Testament it is not wrong for God to do this - look at Ananias and Sapphira - life is his to give and to take away.
The underlying principle is not some moral absolute that underlies the universe that both God and us are bound by.
The underlying principle is that God must be magnified, demonstrated, vindicated. But for US to do that, and for him to does not always involve us doing the same thing

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well I don't think the logic is faulty, though I agree that the premises which you outline are a fairly accurate summary of my position. I do, indeed believe that Jesus never condemned, (cf Jn 3:17 et al) though he certainly rebuked and disciplined on occasion, which is something quite different (Here, I'm talking about the Gospel accounts, rather than the interpretive minefield of Revelation).
I do indeed believe that Jesus so re-interpreted the OT that it, from a human point of view, He stood it on its head. The Jews of the time were certainly in no doubt about this.

---

Disagree, discussed before. Dead Horse.

quote:

---

I do, indeed, think that the concept of God's glory as motivator is a dead end. Let me unpack that. I am with you if you say, "Any action of God will always result in His glory being revealed in some way. This is a very long way from saying that any act of God must be motivated, wholly, primarily, or to a degree, by desire to increase or display His glory, which seems to be perilously close to what you are suggesting.

---

So perilously close that it is, in fact, what I am suggesting.

quote:

---

Part of the problem is our understanding of the word "glory". The common meaning is magnificence, otherness. But, in biblical terms, Jesus refers in the passage from John, of the cross in terms of glory - not exactly the image that springs most readily to mind.

---

quote:

---

The third point is, indeed interesting, but my point was, not that our idea of justice and God's should be the same, but that Jesus' idea of justice and God's should be the same. I could and would argue with you about whether "justice", (which I agree to have at its roots a manifestation of God's character, btw) is universal or changes meaning between God and man, but, surely, you wouldn't argue that Jesus perception and God's perception are radically different. I was not contrasting our sense of Justice with God's, but suggesting that Jesus' sense of justice and God's surely must be the same.

---

quote:

---

I do indeed believe that Jesus so re-interpreted the OT that it, from a human point of view, He stood it on its head. The Jews of the time were certainly in no doubt about this.

---

quote:

---

So perilously close that it is, in fact, what I am suggesting.

---

Pretty certain it was - just didn't want to put words in your mouth (not, of course, that I've ever done that

quote:

---

PSA says, yes his humility and love, but also his sense of divine justice. Without the latter (ie under any other theory of the atonement ALONE) God is "de glorifiying himself" by simply making himself less than he is.

---

Only if the sense of divine justice includes the notion of punishmnent, which is of course, not so much a bone, but a whole skeleton of contention between us!

quote:

---

Yes, and in that we are back to point one - whether Jesus' concept of justice included any idea of punishment. Which I am pretty convinced it does.

---

quote:

---

I do indeed believe that Jesus so re-interpreted the OT that it, from a human point of view, He stood it on its head. The Jews of the time were certainly in no doubt about this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not entirely certain I agree with that. I don't consider myself an expert on Judaism by any means, but I've had a personal experience where studying Judaism helped to convince me that I was 100% certain that I wanted to remain a Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

Yes, and in that we are back to point one - whether Jesus' concept of justice included any idea of punishment. Which I am pretty convinced it does.

---

And I'm pretty sure doesn't. I could cite the woman at the well, Zaccheaus, the Lost Son, the woman taken in adultery, his general ease with "sinners". Had you anything in mind.

---

quote:

---

However, it certainly seems true that many Jews in First Century Palestine were looking for a specific type of Messiah,...

---

As usual, I agree.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
If I could be sure it would work, I just might be willing to have one of those penal substitutions. Mine's just too dang small.

Oh wait. That's not what this thread is about, is it?

Never mind.
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
I would argue that such passages as "the axe to the root of the tree" are not condemnation, but warning. If I say to a child, "If you run out into a busy road without looking, you are likely to be killed," am I condemning them? Of course not. I'm merely pointing out the likely consequence of their actions, much as Jesus points out the likely response of the Roman state to messianic expectations that centre on God coming in temporal power, glory, if you like, rather than in humility, to save his people.
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0