quote:

---

As a side dish ... penal subsitution makes of God a monster in satisfying a blood lust masquerading as legal satisfaction. Whatever happened on the Cross it wasn't the simple and dreadful banalities of "I deserved to die but God killed his Son in my place."

---

This is something also that I've been taught consistently in my own church background. It was taught more in the sense of God sacrificing himself rather than a vengeful father sacrificing his son. This, of course, gives rise to the issue of whether God is more important than His 'law' - when this law demands a high blood price it seems not to be so.

All the same, I was suprised at the the projectable nature of Fr. Gregory's disgust. After all it is the only 'reason' for the Crucifixion I have been taught, coming from my evo, latterly veering to AC/liberal Anglicanism.

So - why was Christ crucified?

[ 08. January 2006, 22:01: Message edited by: Erin ]
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I can't cope with the idea of substitutionary atonement. I've never found a way in which it can actually make sense - all the business of the 'ransom' being 'paid' by whom, to whom, and for what? Can't cope, I'm afraid.

What makes a lot more sense is what I understand to be a more Orthodox position, the 'Christus Victor' tradition, in which Christ ascends the cross to do battle with Death. In his death, descent into hell, and resurrection, Christ defeats death and breaks its power over the world, so that 'death has no more dominion over us'. Christ's death and resurrection then becomes the pattern for our own death and resurrection; death is no longer the end of life, but the seedbed of eternal life (cf 1Cor 15).

Now that I can believe in.
 

---

Posted by Sir George Grey (# 2643) on :
 
Hi Adeodatus,

Unpalatable as it may seem the standard Evo position appears to hang together better as a complete package ie:

1) God Creates World and Establishes Law.
2) Humanity Lives in Harmony.
3) Humanity Sins
4) God makes New Peace Plans but Humanity keeps Stuffing Up (keeping a lot of butchers in business in the process).
5) Fed up with all the bulls and Fatted Calves, God sends His Son Instead to Pay Price..
6) Return to 2).

Now, the neatness of all this is that the Law is kept. By contrast, some loose threads seem to hang from the position you've adopted. From whence comes the power of death? Through man's rebelliousness? Why does Death have this power? Does it proceed from the results of creation being spoiled because of the Fall?
 

---

Posted by markporter (# 4276) on :
 
well.....I believe in substitutionary atonement

quote:

---

As a side dish ... penal subsitution makes of God a monster in satisfying a blood lust masquerading as legal satisfaction. Whatever happened on the Cross it wasn't the simple and dreadful banalities of "I deserved to die but God killed his Son in my place."

---

Well, I'm quite happy with it working like that, but how about we try a different model: Entering into God's presence is costly, it requires the offering up of something perfect, now we had nothing perfect to offer, being corrupted by sin. Christ became that offering for us.

I think that substitution still works perfectly well; the law has been broken, and God needs to express the worth/cost of that having happened to remain perfectly righteous and consistent, and also for the good of us.
 

---

Posted by psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
There's a bery fine book on the Atonement by John Knox - no, not that John Knox! The Episcopalian theologian! (Mind you, the Scots original was an episcopalian, not a presbyterian, too.. - called "The Death of Christ", in which he surveys the traditional approaches to the Atonement, and suggests that they are all broadly findable in Scripture, that none of them can be taken to be the doctrine of Scripture, and that they are actually all related to psychological needs (which are no less actual for all that they are psychological!) that we have arising out of our perceptions of out relationship with God, how it's broken, and how it needs to be fixed.

I don't think we can repeat to ourselves often enough that the word atonement isn't Greek, Hebrew, or Latin. It's English - literally "at-one-ment".

The pervasive sense of being out of control of our own lives, of being held captive by a power that isn't amenable to our wishes to be good, of being caught up in a world that's ensnared by evil - that, it seems to me, is at the heart of "Christus Victor" atonement - whether it's Patristic-period Eastern Christians understanding their faith as liberation from the control of the Devil, or the 'rights' that the Devil has earned over them, or twenty-first century Christians seeing our collective captivity to a world-order that directs us to spend vast sums at Christmas while millions starve and die - and seeking and finding in the Christian faith the liberation from this and the starting point for a spiritual war of resistance against it.

To the extent that we sense that we are captive, abnd helpless, and compromised - or that our captivity, helplessness and complicity are overturned in Christ, setting us free - then Christus Victor is the atonement-story we tell.

But we are also people racked by guilt. Unsure of our personal acceptability to God - because we have big problems loving and accepting ourselves. That's why penal-substitutionary atonement in its criminal-civil law form has held sway for so long in the West. We are individuals - that's what moderenity has done to us - who have no idea how we fit in, no idea what others think of us - or God - and what we need is the objective assurance that we are accepted. Yes, and loved. Because love is in there somewhere, in all the distortions and debasements of the Gospel which penal-substitutionary atonement has brought about. But it's a cold, arbritrary, formal love, just marginally better than nothing. The proof, by the way, that it is better than nothing is that it fills a humn need. People believe it in this way because they need to.

It's important to notice that penal substitutionary atonement was really first formulated by Anselm, in the context of European feudalism, where the question that 'sin' suggested was "How have I fallen out of the networks and hierarchies of social relation that is God's (feudal) world. The question was, given we had affronted God's dignity and honour by 'rebelling' against him (and the 'rebellion' in much conservative atonement-speak is still clearly feudal rather than Scriptural!) how do we fix these broken relations? The answer is - we can't. We don't carry enough clout in the system to put things right. But Jesus does. The King's son... And he voluntarily and willingly... etc. etc.

It's only in early modernity (yes, Calvin! ) that the feudal court is replaced by the criminal/civil court, and all the distortions of the man in the dock being released by the just judge who accepts the willingness of another to die for him (er... how just is that?) and the wedge between the loving Christ and the judging, vengeful God, emerges as a reflection of the modern European soul.

Is penal substitutionary atonement completely clapped out? That's a good question for this thread! I suspect that the answer is that while we feel guilt and uncertainty in the face of God's love, we will need some way of addressing its removal - and Christus Victor isn't about this.

So - am I Christus Victor, or am I penal substitutionary? Well, more both than neither.

But I'm actually personally more indebted to someone who hasn't been mentioned yet. Peter Abelard...

I've said enough for now. Any other Abelard fans out there want to take this one and run with it?
 

---

Posted by Aldamir (# 2762) on :
 
How does Christus Victor cope with the idea of Christ as a sacrifice?
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Sir George Carey

The best I can say about your list is that it can be written into a tract more easily, (and this generation thinks that it invented sound bytes!)

Yes, Adeodatus ... you have it, we believe, that is the Orthodox Christian faith. I can go with Psyduck as well in so far as "sacrifice" is a key Christian term ... it's just the substitutionary / legal / acquittal / satisafaction thing that has been overplayed into distortion in the west since Anselm.

There is a huge old thread of SubAt somewhere. Can anyone find it? Maybe it should go into Dead Horses? It is a very important thread. I hope it hasn't been lost. (I sure groan at the prospect of going constructing that debate all over again!)
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Aldamir

C.S. Lewis made an excellent synthesis in the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. The sacrifice of Christ was the necessary (and, from a human point of view ... paradoxical), 'coup de grace' in God's victory over sin, suffering, evil and death. You submit to something with a power it doesn't comprehend to defeat it. Star Wars is quite good as well ... Skywalker in battle with Vader ... also in LOTR ... Gandalf resurrected after falling into Gehenna with the Balrog.

Early Saxon Christianity resonated very strongly with these themes ... Christ as the young warrior mounting the cross as a stallion of Love to do battle with Hell.

Go here for the Dream of the Rood ... a Saxonm (and, therefore, Orthodox ) Christian poem.

Bearing in mind the popularity of such themes in secular culture; I am surprised that evangelicals haven't followed up on Aulen's seminal work: "Christus Victor." He was a Lutheran of course. Much of Luther's work in this area was very Orthodox. Unfortunately he was loaded with Augustinian Latin juridical baggage as well ... so it didn't all come out consistently Orthodox.

[ 29. November 2003, 10:55: Message edited by: Fr. Gregory ]
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Oh ... and there's Neo in Matrix 3 as well ... blinded, defeated, broken, voluntarily entering, arms outstretched, the Matrix to unstitch Smith.

I think that the block to the west getting a hold of this Orthodox intuition in the popular culture is its deep seated moralism (and moralising). Twas ever thus with the children of Rome ... well, even more so in the second Millenium. Can't we shake it off for good in the Third? PLEASE!

[ 29. November 2003, 11:01: Message edited by: Fr. Gregory ]
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
There's nothing in the 'Christus Victor' model that doesn't fit in with a perfectly Biblical view of salvation history. (Let's stick with the Genesis myth of the Fall as a convenient shorthand way of looking at it.)
(1) Humanity is created to be God's stewards of the world.
(2) Humanity discovers the choice between good and evil and inevitably chooses evil.
(3) Therefore the world is separated from God because its (human) stewards have separated themselves from God.
(4) The power of Death (rather than death itself) is a necessary consequence of this, rather being an imposed 'punishment'. (Note that in Genesis, God says only, 'you shall die', not 'I will inflict death on you'.)
(5) God establishes the Law in his chosen people as a temporary 'fix' to prepare the world for the coming of Christ. (In Paul, especially in Romans, the Law only ever holds sway until the coming of Christ.)
(6) At the right time, the right place, Christ enters the world 'under the Law'. (The only time and place Christ could enter the world.)
(7) Christ becomes all that is human, thus redeeming all that is human: finally taking on the power of Death and defeating it.
(8) Death becomes the seedbed of eternal life preparatory to the final restoration of all things in Christ.

Even the idea of 'sacrifice' fits in with this, if we read sacrifice as an act of celebration rather than an act of guilt. This is in fact what sacrifices were - the act of killing was always followed by a party. In this view, sacrifice is a sacrament, rather than a judicial act. (See, e.g., Ed Sanders's account on Jewish practices around the time of Jesus in his book of which I seem to have forgotten the title. Sorry.)

The 'guilt' that so many Western Christians feel, and which has led to some of the more bloodthirsty formulations of substitutionary atonement, is in my view a false and pathological guilt. It arises from a failure to realise (make real for ourselves) the fact that the victory over Death has been definitively and objectively won, once and for all.
 

---

Posted by psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Er - so you're saying, Adeodatus, that there is only one approved Biblical model of atonement - and that's Christus Victor? I suppose that's marghinally better than saying that theres's only one Biblical model, and it;s penal substitution...

If I had to choose... but hang on! I don't! That's not the way the Bible presents the atonement! Why should there be only one way of talking about it?

The atonement is event, and the doctrine a struggle to articulate that event - not to exhaust it!
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I hope I didn't suggest, psyduck, that 'Christus Victor' is the only way of looking at things. In saying it's a Biblical view I was countering the idea (unstated in this thread, but widely taught in some Protestant churches) that substitutionary atonement is the only thorough-going Biblical view.

My own position is that I can't see logically how substitutionary atonement works, because I have (I think) unanswered problems with the idea of 'ransom' or 'debt'. I also think it's based on an erroneous view of sacrifice and that it often leads to unnecessary guilt in Christians. For these reasons, I believe 'Christus Victor' is a better model, but not the only one.
 

---

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :
 
Think I can follow these arguments! This thread is overlapping with the next one where I asked about atonement!

Why is death an enemy? Why does it have to be overcome? I have spoken to many who would welcome it. If one is afraid of what happens after death, then we are onto the Hell and being unsaved bit, aren't we?

Nic (determined to get this thing straight!)
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by psyduck:
If I had to choose... but hang on! I don't! That's not the way the Bible presents the atonement! Why should there be only one way of talking about it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Bearing in mind the popularity of such themes in secular culture; I am surprised that evangelicals haven't followed up on Aulen's seminal work: "Christus Victor."

---

quote:

---

…evangelical hymnody as a whole displays a definite preference for the substitutionary model of the atonement. However, other models are also used (the “Christus Victor” model, which interprets the death and resurrection of Christ as conquering the powers of evil, has been particularly popular in modern charismatic songs), and such items as the hymns above (“Let earth and heaven combine” and “Here is love, vast as the ocean”) also assign saving significance to the incarnation. Indeed, it could even be said that popular evangelicalism has been shaped in part by patristic thought, through the medium of Charles Wesley’s hymns…

---

quote:

---

Are you sure?

---

quote:

---

I think that Christ's victory over death and hell is by far the most prominent way that the Bible presents it. He constantly refers to "overcoming" the powers of darkness..

---

quote:

---

to being the "light", to turning away from evil, to establishing justice.

---

quote:

---

The Old Testament context is a protracted war between Israel and her enemies.

---

quote:

---

The end of Revelation can only be seen as the peace that comes when the enemies of peace are defeated

---

quote:

---

On the other hand, the few references to such things as "giving His life a ransom for many" and "bearing the sins of the world" can easily be fit into the "victor" theme.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by psyduck:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy: I think that Christ's victory over death and hell is by far the most prominent way that the Bible presents it. He constantly refers to "overcoming" the powers of darkness..

---

I don't doubt it! I'm simply saying it's not the only way.

---

OK. I guess you're right. The accounts are presented with a beautiful variety, and do lend themselves to a variety of interpretations.

I do think, however, that some interpretations have serious shortcomings - leading me to agree with Fr. Gregory's projectile response.

[Edited for UBB.]

[ 29. November 2003, 15:22: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by psyduck:

It's important to notice that penal substitutionary atonement was really first formulated by Anselm, in the context of European feudalism,

---

quote:

---

(2) Humanity discovers the choice between good and evil and inevitably chooses evil.

---

quote:

---

I think evangelicals ARE trying to engage with 'Christus Victor' and, indeed, overtly Patristic insights ...

---

I would by no means equate evangelicals with 'conservative Protestants'. I'm not an evangelical, but I am very aware of the breadth and openness that characterize many who do call themselves evangelical.

Nightlamp: I did run on from Anselm to Calvin, though I really intended 'penal substitutionary' to do duty for a whole category that 'substitutionary' on its own doesn't cover. The point is that the death of Christ does restitution for a punishable wrong that he is innocent of. Substitutionary indicates no more than that Christ dies in our place. Penal, you might well argue, doesn't really do justice to the feudal structure of thought in which Anselm's doctrine is embedded, but the point is that a lawfully-established system of relationships privileging God's rights and honour (Anselm) or God's law (Calvin) has been infringed, and the infringement cannot be overlooked.

(A friend of mine once astonished me with a sermon illustration 'that I could use', about a Church of England clergyman who was an absentee (if I remember rightly) landlord in Ireland. The story was that at a time of great hardship, the tenants indicated that they couldn't pay their rent, and begged that it should be remitted. The story was that the clergyman sent a letter back saying that this was impossible, that the law had to be respected, and also hsi rights as a property-owner - and enclosing his own cheque for the full amount of the rent, so that this could be done. My reaction was astonishment that my friend couldn't see what was wrong with that! In case anyone here is in any doubt, isn't the point that the guy did this very generous thing to uphold a system which stank, and stank in his favour??? )

I suppose that it's a forgiveable limitation on Anselm (whose brain was probably fried after producing the Ontological Argument, if that's the sequence - can't be bothered to look it up as its nearly teatime!) that he thought that the whole universe had the same feudal structure his own society did. I think you can make the same point about Calvin personally, given his personality structure and driving anxieties. Where the thing approaches the unpardonable is when you have people promoting themselves to teaching ministries in conservative Protestant churches who haven't the theologicl education - just the arrogance - to undertake the task of telling people what Christianity is, and then keep their hard-pressed and deeply anxious and vulnerable flocks ignorant that the Bible says a great deal more about the work of Christ than they will ever let them hear. Doctrine as a tool of the power-mad!

I'm in large part an Abelardian because the cross as the demonstration of the love of God is both the truth about ourselves, and the assurance that the truth about ourselves, which we are so reluctant and unable to face (understandably!) is both mirrored and totally accepted in the cross. This is how much God loves us - yes (that's where the understanding of Abelard as an appeal to our 'higher feelings' stops; no wonder it misleadingly parodies Abelard as a 'subjective' doctrine of the Atonement) but it's also what we do to God and to each other, and to ourselves in the crucifying world we create, willy-nilly. And still God loves us. The atonement understood in an Abelardian way post Freud is the assurance that God loves the bits of us that we suppress.

And yes, of course, there's still a deficiency in Abelard's view. But the point is that all 'doctrines' of the Atonement are in some degree or other deficient. And on the other hand, there is something of important conserved in every doctrine of the atonement. Even the penal-substitutionary. For me what's conserved there is the insight that there is absolutely nothing in the relationship between us and God that hasn't been dealt with and put right. But how you separate this from all the extra-Biblical dross that's sedimented over it is another queston.
 

---

Posted by Freehand (# 144) on :
 
Fr. Gregory, would you agree with psyduck in the following statement?

quote:

---

psyduck wrote:
I suspect that the answer is that while we feel guilt and uncertainty in the face of God's love, we will need some way of addressing its removal - and Christus Victor isn't about this.

---

With respect to Christus Victor, I would tack on the concept that Christ enters into us (and vice versa) and defeats sin within our own being. The defeat of sin in our life still requires sacrifice. Sin is not defeated by brute force but through submission to the consequences of sin.

Our role in our own salvation does more to provide guilt therapy than the belief that God sacrificed everything to provide a free gift (sorry if I'm over-simplified here). Substitutionary atonement did not help to alleviate and treat guilt in my life. Rather, it ballooned the guilt to cosmic proportions and exacerbated my sense of lostness. Substitutionary atonement claims a magical solution that amplifies the guilt when the transformation is not forthcoming. Christus Victor, for me, brought together faith and works into one holistic process of oneness with God. I am still on this journey irregardless of my state of unbelief. This is a great comfort in my agnosticism.

Freehand
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by psyduck:
I suppose that it's a forgiveable limitation on Anselm (whose brain was probably fried after producing the Ontological Argument, if that's the sequence - can't be bothered to look it up as its nearly teatime!

---

quote:

---

With respect to Christus Victor, I would tack on the concept that Christ enters into us (and vice versa) and defeats sin within our own being.

---

quote:

---

I fully understood, or thought I fully understood, the Ontological Argument once.

---

I've never been able to afford enough Laphroaig...
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by psyduck:
I suppose that it's a forgiveable limitation on Anselm (whose brain was probably fried after producing the Ontological Argument, if that's the sequence - can't be bothered to look it up as its nearly teatime!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by psyduck:


Nightlamp: I did run on from Anselm to Calvin, though I really intended 'penal substitutionary' to do duty for a whole category that 'substitutionary' on its own doesn't cover. The point is that the death of Christ does restitution for a punishable wrong that he is innocent of. Substitutionary indicates no more than that Christ dies in our place. Penal, you might well argue, doesn't really do justice to the feudal structure of thought in which Anselm's doctrine is embedded, but the point is that a lawfully-established system of relationships privileging God's rights and honour (Anselm) or God's law (Calvin) has been infringed, and the infringement cannot be overlooked.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
So, Borg is about self determination. How West Coast! No wonder he finds it difficult to fit Easter into TA theology. I'm OK, you're OK, Jesus says so, screw the screwing authorities. I think that this is a gross trivialisation of the Christian gospel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
This is why modern psychiatry is so popular, lucrative .... and ineffective .... wrong diagnosis .... wrong cure.

---

quote:

---

(Mark ... I don't think that quote was from me .. it's not something I would say)

---

quote:

---

Still with Ablelard you have to ask why did jesus need to die?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It's interesting to see on this thread a number of Protestant and evangelical contributors saying that SA theory isn't the only way of looking at things. I had always thought that conservative evangelical groups demanded adherence to SA theory of their members - Reform and the Church Society being but two. Can anyone tell me how I might have erroneously acquired this impression?

---

quote:

---

8. We affirm that the atonement of Christ by which, in his obedience, he offered a perfect sacrifice, propitiating the Father by paying for our sins and satisfying divine justice on our behalf according to God’s eternal plan, is an essential element of the Gospel.
We deny that any view of the Atonement that rejects the substitutionary satisfaction of divine justice, accomplished vicariously for believers, is compatible with the teaching of the Gospel.

11. We affirm that the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone in Christ alone is essential to the Gospel (Rom. 3:28; 4:5; Gal. 2:16).
We deny that any person can believe the biblical Gospel and at the same time reject the apostolic teaching of justification by faith alone in Christ alone. We also deny that there is more than one true Gospel (Gal. 1:6–9).

12. We affirm that the doctrine of the imputation (reckoning or counting) both of our sins to Christ and of his righteousness to us, whereby our sins are fully forgiven and we are fully accepted, is essential to the biblical Gospel (2 Cor. 5:19–21).
We deny that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ infused into us or by any righteousness that is thought to inhere within us.

13. We affirm that the righteousness of Christ by which we are justified is properly his own, which he achieved apart from us, in and by his perfect obedience. This righteousness is counted, reckoned, or imputed to us by the forensic (that is, legal) declaration of God, as the sole ground of our justification.
We deny that any works we perform at any stage of our existence add to the merit of Christ or earn for us any merit that contributes in any way to the ground of our justification (Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8–9; Titus 3:5).

14. We affirm that, while all believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and are in the process of being made holy and conformed to the image of Christ, those consequences of justification are not its ground. God declares us just, remits our sins, and adopts us as his children, by his grace alone, and through faith alone, because of Christ alone, while we are still sinners (Rom. 4:5).
We deny that believers must be inherently righteous by virtue of their cooperation with God’s life-transforming grace before God will declare them justified in Christ. We are justified while we are still sinners.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It's interesting to see on this thread a number of Protestant and evangelical contributors saying that SA theory isn't the only way of looking at things. I had always thought that conservative evangelical groups demanded adherence to SA theory of their members - Reform and the Church Society being but two. Can anyone tell me how I might have erroneously acquired this impression?

---

quote:

---

For example, in substitutionary atonement, (penal or otherwise Gamaliel), the resurrection is hardly necessary. Once one is right with God ... that's it ... end of story. When I have spoken to SubAt types on this they simply say that the resurrection vindicates the sacrifice of Christ and offers hope "beyond the grave." There is no SALVIFIC significance in the resurrection itself here at all.

---

Well, they must be being very simplistic and trying to convert you ...

I've never heard of the crucifixion being separated from the resurrection apart from those bits of the church who emphasise Good Friday. The two should go together, inextricably married. SAs (I keep reading that as S&M ) that I've heard emphasise our identification with Christ's death and resurrection. Galatians:"I have been crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live and the life I now live, I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me" Romans:"So you must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus."

Any that don't have that identification, or only think of it to do with life after death are not being very bright.
 

---

Posted by lanky_badger (# 3514) on :
 
hey! that's not fair. you're quoting the bible!
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think it is fair to say that conservative evangelicals do demand an adherence to substitutionary atonement. This doesn't mean that they are completely closed to other understandings - simply that the propiatory aspect has to be part of any understanding of the atonement if the Gospel is really going to be the Gospel.

I can understand why this causes people to shudder. I don't have a big beef about SA - provided one doesn't understand it in a crude court-room drama way. I do think Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones went too far, though, when he doubted whether CS Lewis was 'saved' just because Lewis was squeamish about SA.

Ok, ok, so I've imbibed Augustinian and Calvinistic theology. But I do think it's fair to say that many people in evangelical circles - both conservative and charismatic - are open to some form of Christus Victor approach and that the Resurrection isn't entirely missing from the evangelical landscape - 'how much more shall we be saved by his life ...', 'by the power of an indestructible life' etc...

Evangelicals do tend to be pretty big on Hebrews as well as Romans. We can be overly juridical but we're big on the 'if Christ be not raised your faith is futile, you are still in your sins' bit.

I'm not saying that evangelicals have the only correct 'take' on this - although I'm often tempted to argue that evangelicalism does preserve elements of the Gospel often down-played or even overlooked in other traditions. Just as other traditions emphasise aspects overlooked or down-played within evangelicalism.

I used to be a real git with SA ... on a bad day I could almost relish the blood and gore and punishment etc.

I'm not proud of this and I've broadened and balanced out considerably. I'd have brow-beaten and proof-texted Fr Gregory and Freddy mercilessly at one time but now I bow to their insight and judgement ... yet still reserve the right to hold to a modified SA view. Why? Not because I'm bolshie, awkward or a complete git - although these may be true - but because what I've read of SA in works like John Stott's 'The Cross of Christ' do appear, to me at least, to make sense of the Biblical data. What bugs me about Fr Gregory's approach (and I'm a big fan of his nevertheless ) is that it doesn't appear to allow any room whatsoever for even the tiniest smidgen of a hint of SA. If elements of SA couldn't be seen in scripture then the whole Augustinian/Anselmic/Reformation tradition wouldn't have developed it. Am I missing something?

I'm getting confused. Someone put me out of my misery. Am I that far off the mark?

Gamaliel
 

---

Posted by fatprophet (# 3636) on :
 
As is also outlined in my forthcoming
book " Even more arguments against substitutionary atonement Volume 14 " I propose another obvious problem with the notion of vicarious and substitutionary atonement:

How can it be justice for one person to die for the sins of another? If the argument is that God's justice is satisfied by someone else excepting my punishment, how is that right? Surely we should only suffer for our own sins and not anyone elses. If someone pays the debt then we have simply transferred our debt to a different creditor. If someone is punished for us, then haven't we unjustly been allowed to "get away with it" while there has also been a terrible miscarriage of justice upon the innocent whether they volunteered to suffer our penalty or not?

You see, I do understand the idea of justice needing to be "satisfied". God can't just let us off/forgive us if we have done bad things, as surely this would mean the collapse of the whole moral order of the universe. Moral values are only upheld if there is a strict requirement to make amends or at least change our ways. (some may recognise this as a version of the old Moral Government theory, but it makes huge sense to me)

While criticising SA, I note the need to satisfy the demands of justice does not seem to be provided for by other theories of the atonement. Indeed while I carry little favour for evangelical religion, the liberal christian's God seems a trifle too indulgent, and indeed immoral.
My solution is that we each have to pay for our sins either on earth or in some kind of future purgatory. Whatever theory is used, the problem remains: no one else can really atone for our sins, only we can. period.
 

---

Posted by markporter (# 4276) on :
 

quote:

---

If someone pays the debt then we have simply transferred our debt to a different creditor. If someone is punished for us, then haven't we unjustly been allowed to "get away with it" while there has also been a terrible miscarriage of justice upon the innocent whether they volunteered to suffer our penalty or not?

---

quote:

---

In summation, Lewis argues here that the moral value of retributive punishment lies in its revelatory function. Punishment reveals to the one punished the existential horror of his or her evil. The moral value of punishment consists of its not allowing its recipient to continue in the illusion that his or her evil finds no opposition in the universe. In this way, punishment functions as a means of exposure . It revels the true ugliness of evil, and as such, divine punishment reveals truth about the goodness of God and GodÕs holy opposition to evil.

---

quote:

---

Punishment/restitution. This can mean a fine, a return of property, or even a prison sentence, the latter being conceived as a way of "paying" society for the crime committed.

Rehabilitation. I.e., taking steps to ensure that the person does not do the crime again.

Protection of the innocent. Until #2 above is done, this is the way to keep people from being victimized further.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
fatprophet,
it's not just someone or other "paying" for us, it's God taking the responsibility and paying for us.

And having God as the one we owe everything to is the reason that SA people say we dedicate ourselves wholly to God.

---

I'm not sure I understand the difference between someone else paying and God paying. Whatever, we are still avoiding paying ourselves and I thought God had to uphold justice? Can God really let people off for nothing, without any effort on their part. I know its basic Christianity but does it make sense really?

Perhaps you mean that since God is the one who we "owe" the debt too, then God's paying himself does not offend justice as there is no "higher" justice than God himself anyway. This might well make more sense.

You have made me pause for thought Daisymay. Thanks.

And stop for some sleep. nitey nite!
 

---

Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 
As usual, I am seeing plenty of names, book titles, terminology and philosophy batted about. And while I admire the obvious study and knowledge presented by this, I can never understand why no one wants to go to the Book.

Christ's last words on the cross were, "It is finished." In the original text this is a one word phrase which means, "Paid in full." It is the word that was stamped on papers of credit when the last payment of the debt was made.

From the cross, Christ cried out -- to the Father, to the world, and to us -- "It is paid in full."

How can that be so hard to understand?
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
If that's true, Grits, then why is the line never translated that way? And what's your source for that assertion?
 

---

Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 
It is the Greek word tetelestai. When a debt was fully paid, this word would be written on a loan document, will, or letter. It was also used on tax receipts. In the first century, when people had paid their debt in full, they would shout out the word tetelestai. It was a shout of triumph or victory, if you will. I don't know why both the King James and the New International Versions of the Bible translate tetelestai as, "It is finished."

So, in essence, it was a cry of victory as much as a pronouncement of atonement, wouldn't you think? It seems the melding of the two lines of thought on this is a pretty reasonable interpretation.
 

---

Posted by Freehand (# 144) on :
 
Psyduck, despite your exceeding eloquence, I still cannot fathom how substitutionary atonement addresses the problem of guilt. As I see it, substitutionary atonement places the problem within God. We are not acceptable to God because we have violated justice and God must balance the scale. Jesus satisfies God's justice and makes God able to accept us. To me, substitutionary atonement explains more about God coming to terms with sin than it does about our condition.

I don't think that God has any problems loving us under any conditions. I find any lesser view of God to be irreconcilable with a God of love, even from a purely logical perspective. The problem is not about God's enmity against sin but about our internal self-alienation that prevents us from accepting God's love. It is not that God cannot tolerate sin but that we have been captured in a net of self-hatred. God's love is omnipresent whether we perceive it or not.

As such, I don't see the cross as God balancing the scale. Like you said, it's more like the judge taking off his wig and stepping out of the rigid justice structure. Love cannot be legislated by a law of justice. After all, love does not flow out of obedience to a system of punitive justice. Rather, true justice flows out of a heart of love. How this looks in real life is obviously much messier and this is a great problem for our conceptualizations.

I don't see the cross as necessary. I think that God can love and forgive us with or without such a dramatic expression of love. Perhaps part of the problem is the attempt to look for some sort of philosophical necessity to drive God to go through such pain. I suppose that this pushes me towards the view of Abelard but, really, I go much further. I don't believe that there is a life after this life. I don't believe in making a distinction between the spiritual realm and the physical realm. I don't even believe in making a distinction between God and the "creation". I see God as the very substance of the universe and myself as one interactive piece of it all. (Maybe I am talking out my ass. What is the difference between thinking this way and not believing in God at all? I don't know.) I guess that my fundamental assumption is that at-one-ment is the very nature of things and that it is our confusion that fragments the world into conflict. (How very optimistic of me. )

I have had my share of troubles, like anyone else, and there have been times when I have reached points of high crisis. At these points, I released my problems to God and I found some sort of transcendent acceptance and peace. It had nothing to do with repentance (though, by God, I have done a hell of a lot of it). It was more to do with releasing control and finding, to my great surprise, that the world is not exclusively shit. If anything, this experience is closer to Taoism than anything that I have found within Christianity.

So, what do I see in the cross? I see the dynamic of Jesus relinquishing control over evil around him, even submitting to it, trusting his welfare to the Father. I see love and weakness transcending evil and strength. Ultimately, I don't even believe that it is a true story. I don't believe the afterlife or that Jesus rose again. I don't believe that Jesus was God. However, I do see the story as a true dynamic of humanity and of my own life. At my skeptical times, I see it as a feeble hope but ultimately I have been staking my life on it.

Freehand
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Grits - going to the Book is precisely what knocks out the idea that SA is the only way of looking at things. There are plenty of Biblical passages that suggest the whole thing is partly about a battle to the death with the power of Death. (I don't like proof texting, but I could.)

SA may well be one (among several) ways of looking at things. But as several people on this thread have pointed out, it has its problems:
(1) The whole idea of paying a debt: by whom, to whom, and for what? In particular, how can God be said to 'owe' anyone anything?
(2) Some formulations of SA require God to be subjected to an idea (our idea?) of Justice (the debt is paid so the 'God's Justice', rather than God Himself, can be 'satisfied') - but surely God can't be subjected to anything?
(3) Far from dealing with feelings of guilt, SA can actually increase them - whenever I look at Jesus on the cross, SA tells me it's me who 'should' be there.

It's point (3) that says to me that SA is the wrong viewpoint for our time. The huge increase in the market for psychoanalysis and various kinds of counselling shows clearly that we modern westerners are pathologically guilt-ridden people. Why are people going to listen to a version of a 'gospel' that actually adds to their feelings of guilt? To put it bluntly, when your mother, your partner and your boss are heaping guilt on you, who wants a God who'll only join in with them?
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
I think, Adeodatus, that some of the getting rid of guilt business is what freehand was saying - the "letting go" experience.

If a church keeps going on about how full of guilt and shame we are, they are preventing us doing that. The CofS ethos I grew up in somehow emphasised that (and it was the local culture too) to the extent that it was regarded as arrogance for anyone to say, "I am a Christian" rather than "I hope I am a Christian." Nowadays, I never say the prayer that says how unworthy we are to even gather up the crumbs under the table. I haven't yet managed to let go of the anger I feel about it being included in services.

Any place that is teaching about SA should also be teaching about the idea that the guilt has gone. Visualisations like dumping our bags of rubbish at the foot of the cross and not picking them up again. Identification of dying with Christ and rising with Christ. Being clothed in robes of righteousness. If they are only banging on about justification and not sanctification, they are not looking at or teaching anything like the whole picture.

Grit's picture of the stamp is a useful one not only for the "finish" but for the "new start".
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Missed something and edit was too slow.

There's that story of the guilt-racked person asking God to forgive them for something they had already asked forgiveness for the previous day. God looks round and says, "I can't see anything. It's already disappeared." It's what you're saying - we are so full of toxic guilt and shame that the church needs to find ways to help us leave them behind and go forward into life.
 

---

Posted by Dr Phizz (# 4770) on :
 
Radio 4 had an interesting program on this here . If you've got half an hour it's worth a listen. There's another program on the Orthodox/Catholic schism as well.

Anyway one of the contributors made an interesting remark which has started me thinking on a new version of the story. Can someone classify/repudiate this please.

Jesus is the ultimate scapegoat. OK I know this is pretty orthodox but I mean scapegoat in the ordinary English sense of the word. Jesus dies to point out how stupid our sense of justice is. To point out how limited our understanding of access to God is.

The Human condition is a cycle of scapegoating of one group by another followed by recrimination at the injustice of the scapegoating. Think about
the second world war and the middle east. Cycles of violence perpetuated by our sense of injustice.

What's the first big consequence of "original sin". Abel gets the blame for Cain feeling seperate from God. I used to feel sorry for Cain. I mean how was he supposed to know that God only liked meat? It's seems so arbritrary. Cain's sin is to be ready to kill to restore his understanding of Good and Evil rather than accept he can learn about God from his brother.

So God dies break the consequeces of our faulty judgements.

Appeals to me but then I got a P/j rating of 100%/0% on that psychological profile thingy
 

---

Posted by testbear (# 4602) on :
 
Can I try something, purely to see if it works? Oh, go on, humour me...

If we start from God being holy ( - not just appearing to be holy, but actually setting out what holieness is just by his existence, defining it, being both the source and the reality of everything that can ever be described in any way as "good" or "goodness" - ) then where does that leave any ideas of sinfulness? Surely, if you say God = good and only God = good, then anything that is seperated from God, anything which is different from God in any way is bad? Or, perhaps more to the point, is not good, because it is not God? Is that unreasonable?

It's always been my understanding that from the moment at which Eve decided to bring a course of action which involved "not-God" into the way things were going to happen, then there was an element of "not-God" (and hence "not-good") in the consequences of that choice...? (As for the debates about what the choice actually was, and if there had to be an element of "not-God" for there to be a choice in the first place, etc, well, those are other topics for other days.)

So.

Can God (who is, let's remember, holy - who is the one thing, nevermind person, which can ever be said to bear even the slightest resemblence to "good" (I understate this purely as a literary technique, you understand)) and "not-God" co-exist? No, runs the arguement, because if God ever came into contact with "not-God", either God would have a part of "not-God" in him, and hence not be God ( remember = 100% totally the definition of holiness and goodness, nothing more, nothing less), or the "not-God" would have a part of God in it. (But God is a total thing, not just little bits of holiness - it's all or nothing at all, so to speak). By definition (hopefully, for this arguement's sake) God and "not-God" are like black and white, on and off, top and bottom - no shades of grey, no sliding scale, no halfway point. Holiness has to be holiness-and-only-holiness, anything less is not-holy, not-good, not-God.

Yea? Nay?

So, from the initial point at which everything was God/good/holy we've now (in our arguement) come to the point at which there is this inconsistency, this not-good/not-holy in a universe which began as totally good/holy, right? The Fall has happened, there is now an element of not-God in the universe. And, since both "God" and "not-God" are 100% opposite ideas/states, then there's no such thing as a universe which is "a little bit not-God" - if it's even a teeeny tiny litttle bit seperated from God, then it's simply not God, is it? It might look pretty darn close to being God, it may well have you fooled, but it's just not God.

Which poses a problem. There's God, but with an entire world that he made which is now his opposite, his antithesis, something in which, by definition, he can never fully be himself in. He's God, it's not-God. He's good, it's no-good. He's holy, it's not-holy. And, likewise, every little bit of that world will be seperated from God, by definition totally unable to be God/good/holy, for the same reasons.

So where does that leave us? And where does that leave God? And, more to the point, where does that leave substitutionary atonement and its conterparts?

If God is going to come into contact with anything which is not-God, first of all the not-God needs to have its not-Godness taken away from it - if you take away what's not-God, all you're left with is God, right?

How do you get a stain out of a jumper? You soak it in water (and relevant chemicals, but let's not overwork ourselves here), let the water take all the bits of the stain into itself (becoming dirty water in the process), and then (most importantly) you make sure that the dirty water and the clean jumper become permanently seperated, and stay permanently seperated. By transferring the dirt into something else, the jumper is clean and the water is dirty, and it's the water which is now disposed of, instead of the jumper.

Does this have any bearing on God's situation? (Ha, my linguistic approach to this is rapidly becoming more amusing as I go on. ) Well...

What if (a dangerous phrase, I know) God could find a way of getting rid of everything that was not-God in the world? That would mean that the Godness would be all that's left, right? "Hmmm" I hear you murmur, "this indicates that the not-God part of the world is somehow linked with the God part of it, so that you can have them both making up the world and yet be able to seperate the two - and you've just said that the two can't exist together, haven't you?" Well, it's not that they're existing together - there's still a seperation between them. They're not the same thing, they're two very seperate and opposed parts of what makes up the whole thing. We, as the good book itself says, were made "in the image of God", but yet "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". God is still "in" the world, but we can't say he is the world - the world is not God/good/holy, the world is "not-God"/"not-good"/"not-holy".

So, if God could take all that is not-God/not-good/not-holy, and place it somewhere where it is seperate from him, this would mean that what is left would be God/good/holy, and so would not be seperate from him, right? This place where the not-God goes, let's call it Hell for arguements sake, has to exist if not-God has been brought into the equation, yes? Some would say this is the state of the world at the moment, but I say (as above) that the world is not-God sitting next to, but seperate from, God. Hell would have to be a place entirely without God at all - purely, wholly, 100% not-God. Oui? Non?

So how can God set this up? Well, I suppose this rests on another characteristic, another synonym for "God" which we can bring into the equation - "life". In the beginning, God was what created and sustained life as we understand it, and if we can say that before the Fall, the whole world was God/good/holy, let us add to this that we can say that this was what we mean by "life" - a state of existence which is the way God started it all off. Anything which is not-God/not-good/not-holy becomes not-life also, or what we would call Death. (Or just death, no capital? A small quibble, I think, but not something I'm 100% sure about the difference.)

So the world is sitting in this dual state - God next to but seperate from not-God, life sitting side by side with death. We can see both elements in our existence - we have life, but just as surely as we have life, there will be not-life.

If God can take something which is God (/good/holy/life) and seperate it from himself, then it becomes not-God (/not-good/not-holy/not-life). More to the point, if God can take something which is life, and place it in a state of death, then that state of death is defined as what is seperate from God. By taking all the not-God, and placing it in this state, this position, this place, then what remains will be God, yes? Now, all that this would take is for something which isn't just not-God sitting next to (but seperate from) God, but instead something which is simultaneously God and not-God, which has every single part of it holy/good/life, but at the same time is entirely not-good/not-holy/not-life. If you have this thing, and proceed to seperate it from God, then it's not-Godness would be seperate from God (as previously defined), but its Godness couldn't be seperated from God, since they're the same thing. Does that make sense?

To be honest, I've run out of time or energy to continue this tonight. I've saved this, and will most likely come back to it, but any comments on this would be much appreciated. I feel I've worked my way into a logical grammmatical corner, but I can't see it, and can't look for it. Thank you.
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I like your train of thought, testbear, but I've spotted something that doesn't ring true for me.

I think you're thinking about the wrong God! You seem in most of your argument to be treting God as a thing or a concept (all that stuff about God and not-God not being able to be involved with each other). I think the argument would follow a different course if you took the classical Christian concept of God as person - or more accurately as Persons. Clearly a person can be closely involved and in contact with something that is not that person.

The supreme example of this, of course, is Christ, who in a manner of speaking is God and not-God at the same time, in one person!
 

---

Posted by fatprophet (# 3636) on :
 
I am not sure what you are getting at testbear, but it may be profound.

The two realms metaphor is useful in that it can express and explain the atonement as the result of God longing to unite with us, but that unification of God and Man inevitably costing God because God must, in a sense, descend into our realm to bring us to heaven on what was is in a sense a suicidal rescue mission.

I liken the incarnation and crucifixition to other analogies of rescue. Think of any situation where one must enter a dangerous place to rescue someone who is stranded and in mortal danger: a soldier caught in no-mans land, where someone must brave the cross fire to get to him; or a drowning man only rescued by the rescuer entering the dark, deep and cold waters himself; a person giving a blood transfusion to a dying man or a person running into a burning house, possibly sacrificing his life to save his family. Is Christ's death not like that to?


This is what I understand by the phrase that Christ "bears our sins/punishment". This is not the case of punishment of Jesus for our sins, but Jesus experiencing the conseqences of our sins (our punishment) simply and inevitably as a result of being in our world and uniting with our dark souls.

Lets put in testbear speak perhaps:

Atonement = God + NotGod, a positive minus its negation but God is infinite positive and so there is infinite remainder: God 'suffers' the subtraction, an emptying of himself into nothingness (incarnation, death on the cross), yet remains,(victory, resurrection)
 

---

Posted by Liber Usualis (# 5193) on :
 
This is all very well but it seems to me that one point that has not been looked at is the

quote:

---

It was taught more in the sense of God sacrificing himself

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liber Usualis:
Surely this is the hieracy of Patripassianism or Sabellianism? God did not die on the cross – his Son did. God sent his Son to die and so sacrifice was an important factor but God did not sacrifice himself.

---

quote:

---

by Dr. Phizz: The Human condition is a cycle of scapegoating of one group by another followed by recrimination at the injustice of the scapegoating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
Isn't there a painting somewhere showing Christ being crucified, with the Father behind Him (where Jesus could not see) sheltering Him and the Holy Spirit overshadowing the whole image of pain?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Any depiction of the Father is entirely wrong

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Nothing possessed of by the single divine nature ALONE, (in this case, the Father and the Spirit) can suffer in the direct sense. Only the human nature of Christ (assumed by the Logos / Word) can suffer. The effects of that suffering do however impinge on the Father in so far as he is not unmoved by the suffering of either the creation or His Son in His human nature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
I prefer Ibn Arabi who believes the creation came out of God's longing for us. If that is so, then that longing also caused God to rescue us when we needed it so God could have us back as His lovers.

---

Some people think God created because of being lonely.

In James Weldon Johnson's poem "The Creation", God says "I'm lonely--I think I'll make me a world!" Then God proceeds to make everything by hand, right down in the dirt.

There was a little book called "In The Kingdom of the Lonely God", written by the chaplain at Notre Dame University.

And in one of Fr. Andrew Greeley's novels, Fr. Blackie imagines God as a teenage girl who wants friends to hang out with.
 

---

Posted by fatprophet (# 3636) on :
 
Of course, you have hit the nail on the head. How can it be said that God physically suffers or dies? However perhaps we should consider that divine suffering as empathy, an empathy beyond anything humans can experience, that is tele- and omni-pathic.

As noted above I see the incarnation and death and ressurection of Christ as are all part of the same atonement "process". Atonement is the uniting of God and Man spiritually, but this is a process of two drawn out acts: God crossing over to us and entering into empathic experience of our psychic hells; Man being raised to God's heaven united to God through Christ and his Spirit.
Presumably its common ground that our uniting to God is not simply the product of our own righteousness, we are not "holy" before we unite with God. Where then does all sin and darkness go when we unite with God? God "bears" it and overcomes it. How does God bear it? As infinite empathy and super-conscious-awareness of the human condition which is distinct (surely?) from simple omniscient knowlege of our condition.
However, to my mind, the pain of God does not "pay" for salvation, for atonement, rather it is the inevitable consequence of God's uniting with us sinners, and of course His uniting with us is the only way we can be saved.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Fatprophet,

I like that!
 

---

Posted by AB (# 4060) on :
 
Ok, I've been thinking quite a bit about this recently, so I thought I'd bump this thread with another thought.

Did Christ actually serve our punishment for us? Isn't the result of our sins either an eternity of tourment (worst case) or an eternity of nothing (best case) - and with either, didn't Christ circumvent that punishment? If our punishment was just //physical// death, then aren't we still going to serve that punishment?

AB
 

---

Posted by Neil Robbie (# 652) on :
 
fatprophet

quote:

---

However, to my mind, the pain of God does not "pay" for salvation, for atonement, rather it is the inevitable consequence of God's uniting with us sinners, and of course His uniting with us is the only way we can be saved.

---

quote:

---

Some people think God created because of being lonely.

---

quote:

---

How can it be said that God physically suffers or dies? However perhaps we should consider that divine suffering as empathy, an empathy beyond anything humans can experience, that is tele- and omni-pathic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by psyduck:
So - am I Christus Victor, or am I penal substitutionary? Well, more both than neither.

But I'm actually personally more indebted to someone who hasn't been mentioned yet. Peter Abelard...

I've said enough for now. Any other Abelard fans out there want to take this one and run with it?

---

quote:

---

All the different analogies describe a part of the Truth; none describe the whole of the Truth.

---

quote:

---

I do not think that my partner's care for me was done to make me love him more. A result may be a my love for him deepening, but his actions were done out of his love for me.

---

quote:

---

Matt 18:23-35
"Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.
"The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
"But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded.
"His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.'
"But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.
"Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
"This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AB:
#1 Forgiveness:
Doesn't PSA remove the virtue of forgiveness from God? If forgiveness can be considered "the free discharge of one's debts", then can we consider receiving satisfaction for sin (and thus payment of debt) to be virtuous?

Indeed, is it actually merciful? Isn't being merciful letting someone off what is rightfully owed? Again, if God receives payment for what is rightfully owed is this actually merciful?

To illustrate ...

Hugh owes Gordon £10 pounds, which Gordon rightfully is owed. Hugh can't pay Gordon, so Jeff steps in and pays Gordon on Hugh's behalf. Now, quick question. Has Gordon actually forgiven Hugh and let him off? No, of course not, Gordon has been paid in full. Is that virtuous?

...

does PSA remove true forgiveness, and thus the virtue?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
Then the Cross becomes a charade, as God gives Himself a tenner. Ultimately, resolving the conflict this way results in the cross being purely demonstrative, as far as I can see - God could just as easily balance the books by not giving Himself the tenner - He still ends up with the same amount.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselm:
If a person hurts you, to forgive them you have to 'absorb' the pain into yourself - rather that seek to satisfy it by exacting 'justice' from them.

In the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, do we not see the trinitarian God 'absorbing' the 'cost' of our sin?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Not a charade, but God demonstrating his (just) character in the method he uses to forgive us.

---

quote:

---

I think the problem is that God demonstrating his justice, makes the cross less about us, and so we don't like it so much. But the weight of Biblical material does seem to make God demonstrating his justice as important as him granting us mercy or defeating death.

---

• Far from PSA throwing the emphasis onto God, I believe that it is a very anthropocentric doctrine - our sin leads to Jesus being punished. It is about our (fallen) nature. Non-PSA teaching (eg Christus Victor) is much more centred in the nature of God.
• There could be a case made from the Old Testament that the demonstration of God's Justice is central to His dealings with humanity, but it would be hard to put it up there with His love, or the victory over death on analysis of the New Testament, and it certainly couldn't be inferred from Jesus' life or deeds. As AB so eloquently pointed out, the whole thrust of Jesus teaching was kenosis - he renounced his rights, including that to justice, and urged that we do the same. He "conquered by his own defeat, and won by losing all" as Michael Card put it. Is it not reasonable to assume, if He is the very likeness of the Father, that the Father would do the same?

1. PSA is the only way to biblically describe the work of Christ.
2. PSA is one of the ways the Bible describes the work of Christ (though some might say the most useful).
3. PSA, while not biblical, was a legitimate and useful way of describing the work of Christ to a particular culture (say medieval Europe). It is (probably) no longer useful.
4. PSA is an unbiblical and heretical way of describing the work of Christ.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselm:
ISTM that 'most' people are at different parts of the spectrum of position 2.
I don't think anyone actually holds position 1 but alot of people are arguing against it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autobailer:
As a corollary, any entity that is eternally unchanging, able to neither learn nor grow is not worthy of worship being essentially dead and of no higher standing than a rock.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
I'm not sure if this is a heresy or just a startling demonstration of lack of imagination. Or perhaps just another example of needing to create a god in one's own image?

---

Me too.

Besides, the sending of Jesus demonstrates that, even if God does not Himself change, He certainly changes with regard to His creation - revealing Himself more completely over time as humanity is able to grasp what He wishes to show us. The Incarnation is no small thing, showing that God responds to our changing states.
 

---

Posted by Autobailer (# 5357) on :
 
Go back and re-read what I wrote. I can not and do not worship static entities and think that the incarnation is proof that God is not static.

Quite what changed is another issue.
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
This may be another thread, but I cannot accept either based on the textual evidence, or on the character of God as he reveals himself, that the law was " a mistake" and God, realising it decided to send his Son to die instead. But I believe there is at least one thread on the role of the law elsewhere...

I also find Autobailer's description of "giving death more than it can swallow" completely unfathomable - can you please explain it again?

Isn't the issue with Christus Victor, not that anyone is saying that Christ conquering death is not a central achievement of his atoning work, but rather HOW did he defeat death?
An understanding of the cross that holds PSA as the central model holds that by taking the punishment we deserve (death and (debated) Hell), in our place, Jesus defeats death, by dealing with that punishment. How else does it work? In words of one syllable please as I haven't followed any of the explanations of this so far on this thread!
 

---

Posted by AB (# 4060) on :
 
Leprechaun,

The trouble with the "he took our punishment" idea is that Jesus didn't seem to take our punishment. If our punishment is physical death then we still have that coming - or if it is spiritual death, and hell or nothingness* then Jesus' resurrection and place on the right of the Father is proof that he didn't serve that either.

I guess this is one of my principle arguments against PSA.

AB

* delete according to flavour of faith™
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by AB:
Leprechaun,

The trouble with the "he took our punishment" idea is that Jesus didn't seem to take our punishment. If our punishment is physical death then we still have that coming - or if it is spiritual death, and hell or nothingness* then Jesus' resurrection and place on the right of the Father is proof that he didn't serve that either.

I guess this is one of my principle arguments against PSA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
However, the fact that he is raised again shows that the punishment is completely dealt with, absolutely taken, in the same way that if someone goes to prison and is freed again, it shows their punishment has been served.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I also find Autobailer's description of "giving death more than it can swallow" completely unfathomable - can you please explain it again?

Isn't the issue with Christus Victor, not that anyone is saying that Christ conquering death is not a central achievement of his atoning work, but rather HOW did he defeat death?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Here's a thought...

For those of you who don't accept PSA but do accept the authority and veracity of the OT, how do you explain how the problem of God's anger (which is evdiently the main problem between God and his people throughout OT history) is dealt with, so that God can accept us?
If its not Jesus bearing God's anger in our place, then what changes between then and now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Isn't the issue with Christus Victor, not that anyone is saying that Christ conquering death is not a central achievement of his atoning work, but rather HOW did he defeat death?
An understanding of the cross that holds PSA as the central model holds that by taking the punishment we deserve (death and (debated) Hell), in our place, Jesus defeats death, by dealing with that punishment. How else does it work? In words of one syllable please as I haven't followed any of the explanations of this so far on this thread!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
For those of you who don't accept PSA but do accept the authority and veracity of the OT, how do you explain how the problem of God's anger (which is evdiently the main problem between God and his people throughout OT history) is dealt with, so that God can accept us?
If its not Jesus bearing God's anger in our place, then what changes between then and now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
For those of you who don't accept PSA but do accept the authority and veracity of the OT, how do you explain how the problem of God's anger (which is evdiently the main problem between God and his people throughout OT history) is dealt with, so that God can accept us?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
It's an extremely simple concept. He didn't defeat natural death but spiritual death, which is hell or evil. He did it by teaching the truth so that we could use it to become better people - and not go to hell. It's the most obvious interpretation of what Jesus did.

---

quote:

---

Mousethief wrote:
Actually, I rather thought the main problem was his people's disobedience and spiritual harlotry. God's anger seems to me more of an effort on his part to get them back in line, rather than the fundamental point at issue. Further I don't believe God doesn't accept us, and God's accepting us isn't the issue with salvation, rather our ability or inability to accept, and ultimately become like, God.

---

quote:

---

I think the root of the problem is that God will not accept us while we continue to rebel against him because it would be a compromise of his character,...

---

quote:

---

"In the past God spoke to our forefathers ...but in these last days He has spoken to us through His Son

---

quote:

---

and so (He)"gives us over" (in Romans terms) to a state of mind that will not accept him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think the interpretation you put forward for Jesus actions - that he came so we could follow his teaching to become better people and so save ourselves is far from the most obvious interpretation, it certainly seems to be far from the interpretation of the apostles in any of their letters, who saw Jesus death and resurrection as the key actions that made a difference between us and God, by their atoning nature. No matter what theory of the atonement we take, it is a huge step away from the Biblical material to say that it is us following Jesus moral teaching that atones for our own sin.

---

"Following Jesus' moral teachings" is not the way I would put it at all. I would call it obedience to God. Nor do we atone for our own sin. To atone is to change, and it is God who changes us, not we ourselves, when we obey His Word.

As for this not being true to what Jesus taught, or how the apostles understood Him, I think that virtually every statement Jesus made was about doing good and turning away from evil. The same is by far the central message of the letters. Proof texts aren't even necessary, but I will supply them if you wish. In fact I doubt that you can find a single chapter in any of the gospels where this is not the main emphasis.

Not that Jesus' death and resurrection are not also central, but they make a one since they represent His final victory over the power of evil, enabling people to obey Him. The disciples were sent out to "make disciples of all the nations...teaching them to observe all the things that I have commanded you" (Matthew 28.20). It seems to me that this is the most obvious interpretation - although it is certainly not the fullest or most nuanced one.
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
JJ,

I have to go, so just a couple of quick replies

1) Your view does more than "reinterpret" the OT, it writes off nearly all it reveals from about the character of God from beginning to end. Maybe you are happy to do this, I am not. The question is not just "How do we understand Jesus mission from the Gospels?" but "how do we understand it in the light of the whole Biblical revelation?" God's anger is a major issue to be dealt with here (as paul also obviously thought in Romans 1)
Neither cv alone, or any other atonement model deals with it.

2) I think your point about Jesus being the friend of sinners is exactly the key one. If Jesus was the Holy God of the OT walking among us how could he befriend sinners? What knowledge about a solution for sin did he have that meant he was not distant and unapproachable? (Indeed how was God sometimes unapproachable in holiness in OT, and yet so certain that he could also have a close personal relationship with his people) The answer, I think is PSA.

3) You may find the anger of God offensive. But we must be careful not to be "making God in our own image" - even if we do find it offensive, there is a huge weight of Biblical material portraying him this way. We have to accept it.

There's lot more on this, and I can't deal with it all as I have to go back to my actual job now! Please bear with me as I am the only one defending PSA here (self inflicted I know!), and I can't reply to all of these comprehensively at the mo'!
 

---

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

Sorry to drag you away from your work My job for today has been cancelled !!

I'll just reply to your points whilst I have the time. You can respoond when you have a moment.

1) I relise that I probably don't share the same view of the Scripture as you. Just to summarise, without going into the realms of deceased equines, I do believe the Bible to be God inspired, but I don't believe it of be inerrant in the way in which that phrase is commonly used. I do believe the claims that the Bible makes for itself, namely that its purpose is the revelation of God to those who would seek Him. I also believe that it is God-breathed (note the present tense). Belief in those two truths in no way precludes the view that the God of the Old Testament is progressively revealed from someone barely different from a tribal war-god, to someone recognisibly the Father of out Lord, Jesus Christ. It isn't that God has changed, but, if you like, that His people got to know him better, and therefore could better hear what He was saying. But of course, it isn't until Jesus that we can really see what He is like. Of course, if you take the view that every word of the scriptures is literally true, then we are faced with the conundrum of a God who is both wholly loving, and who also directs us to stone adulterers, or for that matter to eliminate a whole race of people. It's worth noting that Jesus didn't seem to hold to the literalist position, and was delightfully free with his use of Scripture.

In any case, I believe it to be rather an overstatement that to question the idea of God's anger is to "write() off nearly all it (the OT) reveals from about the character of God from beginning to end." There is actually far more about God longing for His people to come to Him, to "act justly, and love mercy, and walk humbly with their God".

2) Or, alternatively, God doesn't have any problem in associating with sinners, (though sinners may have problems in associating with Him! )


3)My fault for not expressing myself clearly enough. I was aware as I wrote that it would be possible to construe my comments in the way in which you have. It is not so much that I find the comments offensive to myself, more that PSA casts God in a role that is deeply dishonouring to Him. It makes Him out to be so much less than He is. I feel it is insulting to Him. It's not that one recasts God in ones own image, but that one should view him in His own image, that of Jesus. WRT the last sentence of para 3, see point 1.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
God's anger is a major issue to be dealt with here (as paul also obviously thought in Romans 1)Neither cv alone, or any other atonement model deals with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
2) I think your point about Jesus being the friend of sinners is exactly the key one. If Jesus was the Holy God of the OT walking among us how could he befriend sinners?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
3) You may find the anger of God offensive. But we must be careful not to be "making God in our own image" - even if we do find it offensive, there is a huge weight of Biblical material portraying him this way. We have to accept it.

---

Objecting to an angry God is not "making God in our own image." The idea that God is not angry but merciful, and indeed mercy itself, is from the Scriptures themselves. You can always resort to the idea that "His ways are not our ways" and pass it off as an irresolvable paradox, but I just don't think that this is the best way to go. There are much more accessible resolutions to this problem. The obvious one is simply that God is opposed to evil, and that this opposition is expressed in many forms in Scripture.
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
JJ,
A bit more time, but not much! Here's my replies:

1) Hmm, deceased equine territory indeed. The things you describe as conundrums I do not find to be so, largely because I think they are solved by God's demonstration of his character (holy and loving) through a PSA understanding of Jesus death. Nether do i agree about Jesus use of Scripture...Oh well.
I have to say though that a large proportion of Jesus' teaching and treatment of people displayed (righteous) anger at their attitude to God. He does announce the destruction that befell Sodom on Capernaum for instance. This is consistent with the God of the OT as I understand him. The unsolvable paradox that Freddy mentions rears its head - how both unconditonally loving, and yet angry. PSA I think is the answer (and hence the paradox is solvable)! This discussion is getting circular though, I apologise.

2) The God of the OT clearly has problems associating with sinners as the whole religious system set up by Him emphasises his distance from them. God clearly longs to bring them to Him, but their sin (and more problematic, his hatred of it, and anger at it) stops Him. Interestingly this was dealt with, in the short term, by a sacrificial system.
Something changes that distance at the moment of Jesus death (hence the curtain in the Temple ripping) PSA explains this, CV does not.

3) Its good to know that we have the same motivation! I feel that taking away PSA from understanding the cross makes God less than he is, because it means that God is not concerned to demonstrate his immense purity and holiness as well as his amazing love. It is the removal of his righteous anger, IMO, that makes him seem like a wet God who is so desperate for our approval that he had to send poor Jesus to die to get us to notice him. Also as I have said, I don't think the revelation of God in Jesus refutes the character of God as angry with sin, and so one does not have to dumb down the revelation of God in Jesus to make sense of the OT material.

Freddy, again I am not sure I understand you. Better not proof text though, apparently that is frowned on round here.
If you are saying that God in rescuing us, enables us to live in obedience to Him I agree. My question is what is it about Jesus life, death and res that allows God to come to us and change us in a way he could or would not do for his OT people? I think PSA provides the answer here - his anger, and our sin are dealt with once and for all at the cross.
If you are saying that our obedience to Jesus' teaching saves us I do not agree - as clearly in the OT people could not be saved by obeying God's teaching (or rather they could have done but they never did) and clearly I cannot be saved this way, as I would love to obey Jesus but never do. Perhaps this is just me.

Just to clarify my position, I am not opposed to a model of the atonement that says Jesus defeated death (or principalities or powers)(more brackets - an "objective model") or one that says Jesus death moves us to turn to God (a "subjective model")but rather that either of these can only be achieved if the problem of sin and God's reaction to it are dealt with - a "substitution model".

Let's not be reactionary - just because this the classic evangelical position does not mean that it is de facto wrong.

 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Take, for example, the way He yells at the woman caught in adultery. Or the way the father of the prodigal son tears his head off when he comes home.
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Just a couple of brief points before I hit the hay.

1) I don't necessarily agree that PSA is the classic evangelical position, though it is certainly dominant amongst certain groups. In terms of the history of the church, though, it's a real "johnny come lately" compared with CV. And of course I don't believe it is wrong on those grounds, despite my sig. Rather it is, as I see it, a weakness in evangelicalism that, as a movement, it has espoused this ( as I believe unscriptural) doctine so intimately.

2) The concept of God being angry with sin is fine. It's when you talk about Him being angry with sinners that the alarm bells start to ring. Of course God is angry with sin, in the same way in which an oncologist is angry with cancer. It is a big leap from that position to one of God punishing Jesus by death for our sin, because someone must be punished for it. There is no necessary link between God being angry at sin, and God having to punish someone in order to satisfy that anger, a character trait that we would find repellant even by the debased standards of the human race.

3) You wrote:

quote:

---

It is the removal of his righteous anger, IMO, that makes him seem like a wet God who is so desperate for our approval that he had to send poor Jesus to die to get us to notice him.

---

I suggest that this is not an adequate summary of the CV position , but to reiterate, I believe absolutely that Christ died for us and that his death and resurrection was necessary to win our salvation. What I do not believe is that this death was in any way involved with God's anger, or with satisfying some external constraint on the Father's action. IMO, Jesus is our champion, not our substitute.
 

---

Posted by AB (# 4060) on :
 
Leprechaun,

It's refreshing to see someone on these boards who is genuinely passionate for PSA, I think that has been missing from this thread and others recently, so I thank you for your input.

However, I still have some genuine questions about it, and the one that just won't go away is the concept of Jesus taking our punishment. The classic PSA argument is that God is 100% holy and just and therefore cannot go lightly on sin. Its debt must be paid, and it is paid by God Himself in Jesus. Yet the resurrection and subsequent ascension show that Jesus hasn't actually paid the full price that we are told we have coming to us. This is not consistent with a God who is perfectly just and needs to transfer the debt to someone/anyone. If he could go 'soft' on Jesus and let him off, could he not also have gone 'soft' on us and let us off?

Unfortunately while unresolved questions like this remain floating around in my head, I'll never be able to sit comfortably with PSA.



AB
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Take, for example, the way He yells at the woman caught in adultery. Or the way the father of the prodigal son tears his head off when he comes home.

---

Or indeed the way he gently went into the temple and asked the traders to quietly remove their stalls.
 

---

Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by AB:
the resurrection and subsequent ascension show that Jesus hasn't actually paid the full price that we are told we have coming to us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
There is no necessary link between God being angry at sin, and God having to punish someone in order to satisfy that anger, a character trait that we would find repellant even by the debased standards of the human race.

---

quote:

---

Had God simply remade the universe to break death, he would have robbed the universe of some of its meaning or possibly entered into conflict with himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselm:
Are you saying that our punishment is eternal death, but Jesus only died for three days, so he got off lightly?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselm:
Are you saying that our punishment is eternal death, but Jesus only died for three days, so he got off lightly?

---

Isn't that what we're told? Our punishment will be eternal separation from God. Hell, I could probably stand a 3-day separation from God. Jesus got off lightly, according to the rubrics of PSA.

---

Death is the sentence, not the amount of time dead.

You don't keep mass murderers in the electric chair for length of a time in proportion to the number of people they've killed - they are just sentenced to death (at least in some states of the good ol' USA).

In PSA terms, the debt was paid when Jesus was completely dead on the cross on Friday Afternoon (thus, just before he dies, "It is finished"), not sometime on Sunday morning.

Eternal death is not a prison term in proportion to the crime, it a sentence with no hope beyond.
 

---

Posted by Theophilus (# 2311) on :
 
AB and Mousethief:

The 'three days' thing is where SA and CV meet: the full rigours of sin were placed upon Jesus, but He who was Life couldn't stay dead - and in his rising defeated sin and death for eternity. Not remaining dead is part of the point: sin and the consequences of sin were eternally split at the Resurrection. (I have a primarily SA understanding of the Cross and a CV understanding of the Resurrection - anyone else out there?)

I don't know whether it's meaningful to talk about periods of time in Hell, when dead and not raised - do disembodied souls have a perception of time? If Heaven is eternal, is Hell not also? I don't know - but I think it's a bit glib to talk as if we can easily understand the metaphysics of either.
 

---

Posted by AB (# 4060) on :
 
Hmmmm, I like your answers Anselm and Theophilus, though something just doesn't "feel right" with them. I guess this is just as much a weekness of Abelard as it is of PSA, but it seems like Jesus is not bearing the specific punishment that we, apparantly have awaiting us (universal).

Frankly, it would just feel more like 'justice' if Jesus willingly gave Himself up to a punishment that could hold Him, to an eternity without the Father, for our behalf. Maybe one can play His divinity too far here, but He knew He'd be back after 3 days, therefore He knew that his punishment was not eternal, nor without hope.

Thus PSA just doesn't have the kind of emotional tug for me that perhaps it should have in traditional evangelical circles. But, as alluded to earlier, perhaps this is as much a weakness with Abelard too.



Crikey.

AB
 

---

Posted by Theophilus (# 2311) on :
 
One mustn't forget the fact that Jesus suffered in a way that none of us have, or could have suffered: being separated from the Father having been in perfect communion with him from eternity.'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' is the centre of SA, both emotively and theologically.

Leaving aside the difficult question of whether the Son and the Father were actually separated on the Cross, the fact that Jesus experienced separation from his Father, with whom he was One, is pretty staggering. For the unity of the Godhead - the Godhead that is defined by the unity of Love - to be divided, has to rank as a greater suffering than anything we can imagine. That's why I don't really buy the 'not enough punishment' argument.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by leprechaun

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Take, for example, the way He yells at the woman caught in adultery. Or the way the father of the prodigal son tears his head off when he comes home.

---

Or indeed the way he gently went into the temple and asked the traders to quietly remove their stalls.

---

quote:

---

When you see on TV the mother of a child murdered by terrorists wanting someone to pay, to be punished, is that really something that is repellent and wrong?

---

quote:

---

I think that our human desire for justice, though it's fallen, preserves something of the image of God.

---

quote:

---

Imagine that one of your friends has been badly treated in a way that caused them distress: lied to or about, stolen from, abused in some way. Is your immediate reaction, almost before your concern, not to be morally indignant? 'How dare the *******; I wish I could get my hands on them....'

---

quote:

---

If, given the situation, you were not at all indignant, would you see that as a positive character trait?

---

quote:

---

if sin does deserve punishment, God cannot let it go unpunished without acting contrary to his nature/distorting the moral fabric of the universe

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

Imagine that one of your friends has been badly treated in a way that caused them distress: lied to or about, stolen from, abused in some way. Is your immediate reaction, almost before your concern, not to be morally indignant? 'How dare the *******; I wish I could get my hands on them....'

---

And would that reaction be stronger, in general, with someone who has never known God's forgiveness, or with someone who has, for years, walked faithfully with the Master? And who would be more likely to act on those reactions.

---

quote:

---

Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. (Rom 12:9)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Gosh, busy on this thread today.

Leprechaun, I agree that CV is a substitutionary model, if by that you mean that Christ wins the victory for us that we could never win ourselves. The problem I have is with the "Penal" bit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The reason I labour this, is because the more I have thought about it, there are just so few steps from CV to PSA, that I'm not sure why those who see CV as the central (or only) model of the atonement get in such a lather about it.

---

quote:

---

and L went on...
My feeling is that, after this discussion, it is the issue of the character of God the father that is raising hackles - people don't like the way traditional explanation of PSA makes God the father look. I stand by it, I think it makes God look like he shows himself to be in the Bible, but I'm just trying to clarify the issues.

---

I agree again that it's that issue that's at stake.

PSA is seen by many, including me I suppose, as suffering from the following:
1. It makes the Father seem incapable of forgiving, unless someone's been punished
2. It makes Jesus, the Son, who appears perfectly (and I say that intentionally) capable of forgiving, of significantly different character to the Father
This contradicts Jesus' words. If you've seen Me, you've seen the Father, etc. The more I read threads like these the more plausible I find The River of Fire (aaargh! VVO!). PSA does, ultimately make God seem to be the enemy, not our infinitely loving Creator and Father.

I've heard from more than one atheist friend that "they want nothing to do with a God who puts us in an impossible situation, sets eternal death as the penalty for any transgression however slight, and then lets us off by killing someone else."

The Trinitarian counter-attack to this cuts no ice with the atheist either. "So, God put us in an (etc), then lets us off by killing Himself, which doesn't work because He's God? Sounds lacking in logic."

The appealing aspect of CV (am I still in CV strictly, or has the OrthodoxVirus™ got me finally?) for me is that God, and I don't mean one person of the Trinity alone, is infinitely forgiving, infinitely loving, and prepared to do anything to rescue us from our sin - anything but remove our free will, which would be a Horribly Bad Thing (sorry psyduck).

If this doesn't work for you, and you can see the loving nature of God more in PSA, well I'm all for it, because when it comes down to it we don't know exactly how the Atonement works in detail. Maybe what gets people's backs up so much about it is that it's presented as the Biblical Position these days.

Hmmmm. On re-reading, maybe the key point is that death is viewed as a punishment for sin, however slight the sin is? Well, maybe that's just - I'm not the judge who has to say - but the idea that death has been allowed to happen to us by God to prevent our sin being locked into us for eternity, effectively turning us into demons, has helped me, i.e. it's a necessary consequence of sin because of God's loving nature rather than his demand for punishment. With this in place, SA (dropped the P) and CV seem even closer and of course, the way through we've been offered is no different.

[Cross-posted with JJ]

[ 07. February 2004, 21:42: Message edited by: Grey Face ]
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
What Grey Face said

BTW i'e had a few spots and aches and pains over the last week,

quote:

---

has the OrthodoxVirus™ got me finally?

---

so now I'm seriously worried!!!
 

---

Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on :
 
ISTM that the Bible tend to express that there are two aspects to our involvement (as humans) with sin; we are perpetrators of sin and yet also victims of sin.

The rest of Creation is purely a victim of sin - suffering the consequences, in bondage. Whereas someone like Satan is purely a perpetrator of evil.

Thus the work of Christ in destroying Evil has two aspects in connection to humanity - dealing with our guilt as agents of sin, but also dealing with our bondage as slaves to sin.
Rather that being in competition, CV and PSA actually go together in explaining this dual work of Christ.
 

---

Posted by Theophilus (# 2311) on :
 
Anselm
 

---

Posted by Sir George Grey (# 2643) on :
 
Some questions which people might like to get their teeth into.

This thread has, for one made me aware of what to me seems a serious problem with SA. Is God more important than His Law? Can an omnipotent God not override his Law? (not dissimilar perhaps to asking the question of whether an omnipotent God can create a rock He can't lift), quite apart from the oft-repeated problem that SA entails that divine goodness includes blood punishment which divine love cannot override (as an aside to Freddy - I never thought that goodness itself was at stake in - only the salvation of humanity, surely a much smaller thing- I think advocates of SA would cheerfully concede that point).


Nevertheless, I have problems understanding Christus Victor. I submit a couple of examples of what it seems to be about to me:

A heavy smoker decides to quit. For two or three months, he suffers before finally being able to free himself of the cravings for nicotene. He has suffered a 'mini-death' in order to gain a life free of a sort of slavery.

here's another example from recent times:
Nelson Mandela involved himself in the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa. For this he was locked up on Robben Island for many years. His suffering and example, and his presidency of South Africa after his eventual release helped bring a peaceful end to apartheid, and to help restore a division between communities (not complete but definately getting there).


Perhaps I'm being overly juristic, but I have not yet been able to understand the background to 'victory over death'. To me, this sounds like itself an appeal to some sort of law, in this case a natural law from which we discover that Death is the result of separation from God, and suffering is the atonement. Suffering seems to be a requirement - and if I have understood the place of suffering in Christus Victor correctly the idea itself does come very close to SA at this point, the difference being that the state of guilt is seen more distinctly as a broken relationship than a more abstract state.
 

---

Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
May I venture to suggest (liberal side of the LB here) that if PSA causes Lep to be lost in wonder, love and praise, then PSA is a damned good model for Lep to use as primary understanding of atonement.

If, on the other hand, it causes K-LB to question the reality of the forgiveness and mercy of God, then it is a damned bad model for K-LB to use.

In other words - is it not best to say that none of these models is particularly accurate, in that the truth of the matter is probably beyond human understanding, or at least beyond human description. And in the same way it makes sense for the physicist studying refraction to think of light as a wave, and for the physicist studying the photoelectric effect to think of it as a stream of particles, whilst recognising that actually it is both, or neither, it makes sense for each of us to understand atonement in the manner that is most helpful for us.
 

---

Posted by Sir George Grey (# 2643) on :
 

quote:

---

the truth of the matter is probably beyond human understanding, or at least beyond human description

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
Why not? Plenty of things of God are claimed to be beyond understanding.

---

quote:

---

1 Corinthians 15:17
And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

---

quote:

---

In saying that, a lot of the objections to PSA on this thread have been on the basis that "I can't understand and therefore don't accept how God can be essentially forgiving and yet angry with sin".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:


And if not constrained, then He must desire to punish sin, which is even less like the character of God as displayed in Jesus.

---

quote:

---

I don't accept that the one follows from the other. If God were true constrained by justice, as PSA claims, then Jesus death would have been in vain, for in what sense is it just to condemn and punish one man for sins in which he had no part.

---

quote:

---

I think that from the basis of an abstact philosophical discussion, we would all really agree that a God who behaved in the way that I have described (perfectly loving, perfectly forgiveing, perfectly restoring) would be more worthy of worship than one who must exact vengeance from (or on behalf of) transgressors. After all, we value those characteristics more highly in humans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I am so not agreeing with this. At all. I do not value people who allow terrible miscarriages of justice to go bypassed more than those who insist that justice be served. The Christian is to be forgiving because we believe that God eventually will avenge

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AB:
Ok, diversion.

---

I think we can all agree on this

quote:

---

What about that pesky verse that talks about our forgiveness being reliant on the resurrection.

quote:

---

1 Corinthians 15:17
And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

---

How does that match up with PSA and Abelard - it seems to be fairly decent pointer to CV.

---

Hmm, what about that pesky verse from Isaiah 53:6?

No one is actually denying CV as a legitimate description of the work of Christ.
Further, I don't see how this 'refutes' PSA. The resurrection functions in the PSA metaphor as a vindication of the complete satisfaction of 'the debt' being paid. It is the fountain gushing out of the BBQ as vindication that the fire has been quenched. It is the change handed back at the end of a payment...

...it is, it is ... a bad day for metaphors
 

---

Posted by AB (# 4060) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I don't think the character of Jesus is inconsistent with the character of God of OT, Jesus reveals perfectly both a God who longs to forgive and will offer forgiveness to those who seek it, and yet is rightly angry with those who are rebellious against him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grey Face:
I believe... etc. I could be wrong. But so could you.

---

quote:

---

I do not value people who allow terrible miscarriages of justice to go bypassed more than those who insist that justice be served. The Christian is to be forgiving because we believe that God eventually will avenge

---

quote:

---

Erm, I think if we have a look where Jesus' righteous anger lies, it is in the direction of the religious few corrupting the redemptive work of God. The hypocritical, the false teachers, those who weigh down the new converts with rules and regulations (those who corrupt the 'image' of God?)

But let us consider how he dealt with sinners - and I would indeed consider it a scandal - he treats them with compassion and pronounces their sins forgiven. With the samaritan woman by the well, he doesn't even tell her to "go sin no more". I would suggest that God's "righteous wrath" towards sinners is strikingly missing from Jesus' approach.
AB

---

quote:

---

Part of the problem my be our understanding of reconciliation. You might argue, "If God can forgive us anyway, why did Jesus have to die?" (I hope I'm not putting words into your mouth) My reply would be that reconciliation is more than the forgiveness of sins. We can be forgiven, but still not be reconciled.

---

quote:

---

If we are still bound by our sins, we are crippled in our relationship with God, not because he wants to be disassociated from us, but because we cannot receive what He wants us to have.

---

quote:

---

In this understanding, Jesus dies to break the power of sin in our lives, to liberate us from our disease, if you like. God, indeed was reconciling the world to himself on the cross, but I don't see that as necessarily bound up with the idea of sastisfaction a la Anselm (not the shipmate)

---

quote:

---

Your view says God was stuck for a way to influence us and so sent Jesus.

---

quote:

---

dealing with the relational problem between God and us was the central thing that happened

---

I would, to a point, agree with this, though I think there was a cosmic significance as well, but the relational problem, I believe, was, and is, all on our side.
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
JJ,
You are very gracious, I'm sure the fault lies in my befuddled mind, mixing this discussion as I am with funding appraisals.

I'm still not sure I get it, so again correct me if I'm wrong.

The "cosmic" thing that happens IYO, is that God separates/heals us from our sinful nature. A couple of issues with this
1) This is still subjective - ie it still means the cross is essentially about us (which you may be happy with, I am not)
and 2) (linked) What is it about the cross that "allows" God to come to us and heal us and change us in a way he did or could not before?
Something before the cross limited or stopped God simply dealing with or healing sin? In my view, it was his immense holiness, and justice - the only "constraint" was his own awesome character.
In your view, God is somehow so limited by our sin that his only option is to send Jesus to die.
I still find that it is this view, rather than PSA that makes God less than he is.

But again, I'm still not sure I've got you completely! If I'm arguing with a straw man, then please illuminate...
 

---

Posted by AB (# 4060) on :
 
Leprechaun,

Perhaps it is not our sin that is the barrier between us and God, but perhaps our nature. Perhaps it is not our past, but rather our now that stops us from being reconciled to God. The cross may well be an objective method of dealing with that.

or

Perhaps the cross was about God experiencing the death and suffering of his creation, first hand, to understand and draw closer to us.

Can the cross only be objective if described by PSA?

Just some random thoughts, you may now continue with the regularly scheduled debating...

AB
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Lep:
How I hate appraisals!!!!

No, the cosmic thing that happens is that God breaks the power of evil in the universe on the cross. My understanding is that evil pre-exists the fall of man. That certainly seems to be the view of the Genisis author. Whether or not you want to call that evil "Satan", and how you understand that evil will depend on your view of the OT. As a matter of fact, I haven't any problem with the traditional language, but others might like to think of these things in terms of chaos, or even entropy. The healing of our sinful nature is a consequence of that cosmic, salvific act. Paul seems to tie these two strands together in his teaching in Colossians 1

quote:

---

16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
21Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of[6] your evil behavior. 22But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation

---

quote:

---

Perhaps it is not our sin that is the barrier between us and God, but perhaps our nature. Perhaps it is not our past, but rather our now that stops us from being reconciled to God. The cross may well be an objective method of dealing with that.

---

 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
I am beginning to get this a little more now. But not fully I think.

And to be honest, I agree with all the positive points you are making - that Christ died to defeat evil, it was a cosmic spiritual event doing that, and as such it accomplishes more than our salvation. Don't fully understand the smallpox thing, but am happy to run with it.

My problem with it just being about that is that it really is exceedingly dualistic. God and evil having a battle over the centuries and God winning.
Any view like this one, sees the cross as only a victory over death, or evil, rather than God's expression of his own character makes God smaller than he is. The only thing that could stop God achieving what he wants is ...God. Not evil, not death. In fact God introduces death in Genesis, so why not just take it away again?
No, the problem must be one to do with God himself, rather than just a fault in the universe he is sovereign over, or else he could have just fixed it. The cross on a PSA model shows how he did fix it in a way that is consistent with his character.


Its not that I disagree with you per se, merely that I cannot see how any of the outcomes of the cross you talk about can have happened without subistitution, and that it leaves the character of God as Holy out of the equation, which brings about the need for PSA. I agree it achieves all you say it does, but cannot see why it had to be the cross as a solution unless PSA is at the heart.

AB, I didn't really get the first comment you made - I agree our nature needs changing, and that the cross brings about that change - an expiation of our sin. My question remains for any other model how a Holy God CAN come and live in and change our nature, when the effect of someone knowing God in that way in the OT was instant death. Answer - anger dealt with at cross.

Your second point - I agree with, it is an amazing truth that God identifies with us in Jesus death, Hebrews makes a big deal of that, but it is just so much more than that. That way of thinking alone brings us to the "Something was lacking in God's experience so that he couldn't reach us" that really does make God less than he is. The results become merely to do with our attitude to God (which our of course effected by the the cross) rather than any objective achievement for or by God.
I realise you are probably happy with this. For the reasons above I am not.

I didn't say any of that very clearly, but I might try again later.
 

---

Posted by AB (# 4060) on :
 
Leprechaun,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
My question remains for any other model how a Holy God CAN come and live in and change our nature, when the effect of someone knowing God in that way in the OT was instant death. Answer - anger dealt with at cross.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AB:


I can see that that's where your thinking is leading at the moment - but I would suggest that you are interpretting the OT in light of PSA.

---

I do try to interpret the OT in light of the new, you are quite right.

quote:

---

There are plenty of imperfect sinners who had a very intimate relationship with Yawheh in the OT. Not least David & Solomon, who were held in high esteem by God, inspite of their sin.

---

Well, we are about to get into deep theological waters here, but I would suggest that their faith in the OT covenant was tantamount to faith in the cross so it was ultimately PSA that allowed their relationship as it was.
In saying this, their whole system of religion emphasised God's distance from them rather than his closeness, no matter what the reality of their relationship. The whole OT points to a solution to this problem. Something that will allow God to come close, right into their hearts and change them. I think PSA is this solution.

2) Diminished responsibility means that you are regarded as guilty of a lesser offence but still guilty (as it only operates in commuting murder to manslaughter) I would think off the top of my head that with God it operates a similar way - people who know are more guilty, but we are all essentially guilty.

I am glad you can see where my thinking is going.

 

---

Posted by AB (# 4060) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I do try to interpret the OT in light of the new, you are quite right.

---

quote:

---

Interpretting the OT to fit PSA is not reading the OT in light of the new. It's reading it in light of a model that's been prevalent for some 400 years.

---

quote:

---

For example, there are many verses in the OT that suggest that the OT sacrificial Law wasn't necessarily what God desired - but rather repentance, love, mercy and to walk humbly with Him. However, with PSA, we see a model of the cross in the model of sacrificial atonement and allow that to support our existing assumptions, rather than to challenge them.

---

AB, I think, again, that this is exactly the point. If God was really interested in knowing us, walking with us, us repenting and knowing him, why was the sacrifical system there at all. Why were sacrifices required?
Its not the sacrifice that God wants from us, he wants to relate to us, but the sacrificial system emphasises the problem of our sin in this relationship, and the need of a solution.

Of course God's ultimate aim for us is that we repent, turn to him and walk humbly, PSA is about the means for that route to be open.
To be honest I think it is Abelard's view that supports our existing humnaistic assumptions, that all that is really wrong with us is that we need to be emotionally moved to love God.
The problem is much more serious than that, according to both the old and New Testaments, and the reason I think Abelard is so popular is that it makes us look better than we are.
I think that's also the reason that CV appeals -because we are removed from the equation as the problem, and it is death or the devil instead.
Easier to accept, but, I am afraid, not true.
 

---

Posted by AB (# 4060) on :
 
Leprechaun,

Let me just say, once again, how pleasing it is to have someone on the thread who is passionately supportive of PSA. It really is a breath of fresh air, and I always find your posts gracious and informative!

Back to business though

Well, PSA may well have it's roots in Romans (again, we are in danger that we only read Romans in the light of PSA) and possibly in the writings of Augustine too, but it was only really a recognised model of the church in feudal form with Anselm in the 12th century, and in its forensic form with the reformers. Before that CV and variants were the model de facto for the church. Romans too is not straightforwardly advocating PSA. Romans 3:25 still contains a great deal of controversy surrounding propitiation/expiation - but it's really not that important!

I'm glad you mentioned Abelard, as I think it's been under represented in this discussion recently, and I do think it's a much richer model than a quick scratch of the surface reveals. For example, where it scores over PSA, in my opinion is that it focusses more on goodness, than solving the conundrum of salvation.

In PSA goodness is said to flow from salvation, but combine PSA with justification by faith alone and it's easy to see why modern "christendom" is awash was luke-warm christians, secure in their salvation but unmoved to perform 'good works'. (I know this isn't PSA's fault alone, but I do think other models are better at encouraging 'good works').

With Abelard though, love is put firmly on the agenda. The incarnation is the ultimate expression of love, the cross the result of a hostile world rejecting its creator and the ultimate act of submissive love, the resurrection a validation of God's love for His children who love in this crucifying world.

Christ can be said to be bearing our sins, by triumphing where we are weak. In rebelling against the heirarchies of sin, he breaks the power that our pride has over us and clears a path back to our Lord. He bears our sins away from us, in the way that he bore sickness away from those who he healed.

It's all good.



AB
 

---

Posted by The Cake Detective (# 4578) on :
 
Hello! I've been trying to keep up with this discussion, all very interesting, no doubt I've misunderstood, forgotten or skimmed over lots of stuff I'd be better off remembering, but I'll take the chance to dive in anyway...

The way I see it, it's very artificial to seperate the forgiveness of sins and defeat of death. Death is the result of sin - sin seperates us from God, spiritual death, and then we die physically. So in forgiving sin, death was also defeated, and the defeat of death was also the defeat of sin.

quote:

---

Well, we are about to get into deep theological waters here, but I would suggest that their faith in the OT covenant was tantamount to faith in the cross so it was ultimately PSA that allowed their relationship as it was.
In saying this, their whole system of religion emphasised God's distance from them rather than his closeness, no matter what the reality of their relationship. The whole OT points to a solution to this problem. Something that will allow God to come close, right into their hearts and change them. I think PSA is this solution.

---

quote:

---

I do believe the Bible to be God inspired, but I don't believe it of be inerrant in the way in which that phrase is commonly used. I do believe the claims that the Bible makes for itself, namely that its purpose is the revelation of God to those who would seek Him. I also believe that it is God-breathed (note the present tense). Belief in those two truths in no way precludes the view that the God of the Old Testament is progressively revealed from someone barely different from a tribal war-god, to someone recognisibly the Father of out Lord, Jesus Christ. It isn't that God has changed, but, if you like, that His people got to know him better, and therefore could better hear what He was saying. But of course, it isn't until Jesus that we can really see what He is like. Of course, if you take the view that every word of the scriptures is literally true, then we are faced with the conundrum of a God who is both wholly loving, and who also directs us to stone adulterers, or for that matter to eliminate a whole race of people. It's worth noting that Jesus didn't seem to hold to the literalist position, and was delightfully free with his use of Scripture.

---

I have for a long time wondered whether the concentration on the 1st century theories of atonement isn't somewhat misplaced. One has to remember that the idea of the efficacy of sacrifice was deeply embedded in the thinking of 1st century Jews (and indeed those of other religions). One example, which doesn't appear in the Bible, was the development from at least the 2nd century BC of the rabbinical thinking about the sacrifice of Isaac. In Gen.22 the usual view is that Isaac was a boy of perhaps 12 or thereabouts; but by the 1st century AD the rabbis had developed a theory that Isaac was a fully grown adult, and that he voluntarily offered to submit to the sacrifice demanded by God. In centuries following the events of Gen.22, when God was displeased with the Jews they would plead "Lord, remember the sacrifice of Isaac"; i.e. the sacrifice voluntarily offered by Isaac was held to be a satisfaction to God for subsequent failings of His people, and was effective to avert God's anger.

One can readily see that Jesus himself may have had this in mind when he voluntarily submitted to arrest and execution; and that Paul may have drawn on it for his theories of the efficacy of the sacrifice of Jesus. Together with this, the daily sacrifices offered in the Temple were regarded by many as ensuring the good favour of God for the Jewish people, and averting his wrath at their shortcomings; and the idea of the scapegoat bearing the sins of the people into the desert carries something of the same thinking.

Against this background, what Paul is saying is that you don't need repeated sacrifices in the Temple. The sacrifice of Jesus, the willing victim (like Isaac in the rabbinical version), is a once for all act that does not need to be repeated. It secures the goodwill of God, averts the possibility of His anger, and reconciles Him to our sinful state for all generations to come.

One can see how this fits in with 1st century thinking. I am less clear that it fits with the way in which 21st century Christians think (or should think), let alone 21st century non-Christians who are seeking for an explanation of what Christianity stands for. One can carry Jolly Jape's point further: just as people got to know God better as time progressed, so they can continue to get to know Him better to-day. OT ideas of sacrifice are no longer in vogue, and I seriously question whether they are attractive to non-Christians. The best guide to God's nature, as Jolly Jape says, is the character and teaching of Jesus. His central message, for me, is in Mt.6.33: "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness ..." ("kingdom" here meaning, of course, the sovereignty of God, i.e. make the love of God central to your life, in accordance with the first and greatest commandment, from which all the others flow). And his conduct in persevering in his chosen way, when he knew that it was likely to lead to his death and when he could have escaped this fate even as late as from the Garden of Gethsemane, is a pattern for us all to follow. It was, of course, vindicated by the Resurrection, which was central to Paul's teaching, but which has not figured nearly as largely in the Western church as the Crucifixion (mistakenly, in my view - the Orthodox Church's emphasis on the Resurrection and on the risen Christ, Christus Pantocrator, is more attractive and more true to the NT).
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
AB,

Thanks you for your affable comments. Avatars are funny aren't they - I'd always imagined you as being a Jesus lookalike, and now I've just been very disturbed by viewing your profile.

I am aware of the Romans controversy - expiation, propitiation, and all of that. I think even if you do go for expiation as a translation (sic), that in itself certainly requires SA, if not PSA to be true.

I still find Abelard thoroughly unconvincing, as it takes no account of
1) The character of God, neither his holiness nor his immense power. Abelard's view completely fails to take our sin and are sinful coniditon seriously, and makes the cross a bit of a pathetic wave for help from God's point of view. As such, I think the reason it appeals, as I said in my last post, is because it makes us seem nicer and more important than we actually are. While your explanation of it makes sense, and I don't disagree with any of it as a secondary effect of the cross in moving us to repentance, it means nothing if the objective problem of our sin and God's holiness is not solved.
2) That, as I have said before, PSA does not require love to be removed from the equation, as in sending Jesus to die in our place God perfectly expresses his love for us in a just way. Anslem (theologian not shipmate) was, I agree far to clinical and feudal in his description, but PSA not only allows for the love of God but perfectly encapsulates it.

Luke warmness in the church is not because of PSA, but rather, I think because its effects are inadequately explained.
I am most uncomfortable with the (admittedly inaccurate) mutation of Abelard that floats around today that says "Jesus did this for you, what will you do for Him - do you love Him as much as he loved you...?" While this may evoke a response, it is not a Gospel response, just a works based one.
This is just emotional blackmail, and is rightly counter acted by an stress on the objective achievement of the cross, that justifies us, and makes us God's children. Only possible, as I have said before, because Jesus death deals with our sin and God's holy wrath at it.
Once we grasp that, we really will change, not by having our arms twisted, or emotionally balckmailed, which is commonly how the Abelard model is used to "move us to good works." but by becoming what we are, what God has made us.

Soz. Much as your explanation was deeply moving, I don't think its "all good". All bad, in fact, as it makes God less than he is, feeds my pride by telling me I'm better than I am, and seeks to emotionally manipulate me into obedience.
 

---

Posted by AB (# 4060) on :
 
Lep,

I do think we are rapidly reaching an empass where we will simply become to tired to thrash it out anymore! Nevertheless I will try and point out what I think are the key issues here.

#1 God's character
PSA "bigs up" God's character by stressing that he is wholy other than us. He cannot go soft on sin, his wrath is just, PSA is the only way he can solve the condundrum of sin.

I would, however, look at the incarnation as a model to a). God's character and also b). The importance God places on it. In the incarnation God becomes weak to save us, becomes poor, becomes frail, becomes mocked, tortured, killed.

This is consistent with the parables that show God as a shepherd willing to leave the flock, to the running father, willing to shame himself to great his returning son, to the merciful king who forgives his slave's debt.

I wonder whether our understanding, and thus protection, of God's character is really at the forefront of God's salvation plan.

#2 Sin
PSA sees it as a barrier between us and God. A list of wrongdoings that God cannot let off, unless their debt has been paid.

I would, however, see it as a symptom of our sickness. We sin because we are sinful. It is our desire to sin that keeps the distance between us and God, and at any time we can return like the son, to the running father, waiting for us to come back.

#3 Justice
PSA would see it as enforcement of God's character. I would see it as serving redemption. In the story of the prodigal son, the father does not ask for repayment, for he is back, and that is all that matters.

I think these key differences are why you find PSA to be the best model for you, and why I find Abelard to be the best for me. But since they both help us understand the atonement in methods useful for us - doesn't that make them both equally valid as models?

AB
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by AB:

I do think we are rapidly reaching an empass where we will simply become to tired to thrash it out anymore!

---

Indeed. Also, I'm not sure I want to get into a protracted discussion with someone who has such psychotic eyes.

quote:

---

#1 God's character
PSA "bigs up" God's character by stressing that he is wholy other than us. He cannot go soft on sin, his wrath is just, PSA is the only way he can solve the condundrum of sin.

I would, however, look at the incarnation as a model to a). God's character and also b). The importance God places on it. In the incarnation God becomes weak to save us, becomes poor, becomes frail, becomes mocked, tortured, killed.

This is consistent with the parables that show God as a shepherd willing to leave the flock, to the running father, willing to shame himself to great his returning son, to the merciful king who forgives his slave's debt.

---

quote:

---

#2 Sin
PSA sees it as a barrier between us and God. A list of wrongdoings that God cannot let off, unless their debt has been paid.

I would, however, see it as a symptom of our sickness. We sin because we are sinful. It is our desire to sin that keeps the distance between us and God, and at any time we can return like the son, to the running father, waiting for us to come back.

---

quote:

---

#3 Justice
PSA would see it as enforcement of God's character. I would see it as serving redemption. In the story of the prodigal son, the father does not ask for repayment, for he is back, and that is all that matters.

---

quote:

---

I think these key differences are why you find PSA to be the best model for you, and why I find Abelard to be the best for me. But since they both help us understand the atonement in methods useful for us - doesn't that make them both equally valid as models?

---

Well, in one sense. I believe that if you are trusting Jesus to get you to heaven you will get there, no matter which model of the atonement you hold to be central. However, ultimately I believe that it is only because PSA is true and the central model of the atonement that any of us will get there.
 

---

Posted by Talitha (# 5085) on :
 
Can I just say how good it is to have both sides of this argued so coherently, so that undecided people (e.g. me) can work out what we think.

My conclusions so far:

1. I disagree with the claim that CV diminishes the character of God. He is necessarily constrained by something: either by Justice (PSA) or by us (CV). I think it's actually better for God's dignity, and more compatible with other Christian theology, to say he is constrained not by some greater abstraction outside himself, but by us. It doesn't preclude his omnipotence, because he has chosen all along to delegate some of his power to us.

Firstly in the general matter of free will and never forcing anyone to come to him, even if he suffers thereby.

"He cannot ravish, he can only woo." Screwtape.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!" Luke 13:34, italics mine. It doesn't say "but I didn't want to because you were too sinful and I couldn't stand the sight of you."

And secondly in the matter of achieving the purposes of his kingdom largely through human agents. He has chosen, in his power, to be subject to us in some things. I think that makes him look greater, not less.

2. I also disagree with the idea that CV makes us look better than we are (sorry, Leprechaun!) With PSA, the problem is all on God's side, and as soon as he gets over his grudge against our sin, we gleefully come running back into his arms. Unfortunately, we're worse than that. Not only do we sin, but we're reluctant to be reconciled, even after we're forgiven. God has to change something in us, as well as (or perhaps instead of) something in himself - because we're the ones with the problem. CV gives more credit to God and less to us.
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
(Sighs wearily)
Much as I am enjoying this debate, I do feel now that I am simply repeating the same things over and over again, as I am about to do with Talitha's post. So I am going to answer her, and then not post again on this issue unless I really really have anything different/more interesting to say.

quote:

---

1. I disagree with the claim that CV diminishes the character of God. He is necessarily constrained by something: either by Justice (PSA) or by us (CV). I think it's actually better for God's dignity, and more compatible with other Christian theology, to say he is constrained not by some greater abstraction outside himself, but by us. It doesn't preclude his omnipotence, because he has chosen all along to delegate some of his power to us.

---

quote:

---

2. I also disagree with the idea that CV makes us look better than we are (sorry, Leprechaun!) With PSA, the problem is all on God's side, and as soon as he gets over his grudge against our sin, we gleefully come running back into his arms. Unfortunately, we're worse than that. Not only do we sin, but we're reluctant to be reconciled, even after we're forgiven. God has to change something in us, as well as (or perhaps instead of) something in himself - because we're the ones with the problem. CV gives more credit to God and less to us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AB:
I'm just intrigued, why is a subjective result of the cross a bad thing? If one doesn't see the condundrum of sin something to be solved (as I don't) - then a subjective effect of the cross is sufficient, no?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fatprophet:
Not surprisingly the non-psa types tend to be religious and/or political liberals.

---

I was with you until this point. Orthodox are non-psa types but you can hardly say we're religious liberals, and most of the Orthodox in the US seem to be political conservatives as well (alas).

We believe in the usefulness of law and order in preserving human society, even if it doesn't apply to our relationship with God. To paraphrase Josephine, "justice" is a stopgap until we learn the real underlying principle which is love. Where love is perfect, justice has no raison d'etre. Or to put it another way around, "God's justice" is an incomplete way of looking at God's love. Human justice is an attempt to make things "fair" but ultimately what matters is not what's fair but what is godly and what is loving.
 

---

Posted by AB (# 4060) on :
 
fatprophet,



Yup, I'd say that's the crux of the issue for me. I think forgiveness is and should be unconditional, but I think I'll start another thread for that one!



AB
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
FWIW I'm an electronics engineer, so I have a science background, I'm well to the libertarian left politically, would be anti death penalty if it were an issue in the UK. I'm not an inerrantist, but would regard myself as moderately conservative theologically, (ie, quite happy with miracles, physical resurrection, virgin birth etc.)

Having said that, although it's not a 100% match, I think I agree with the thrust of Fatprophet's post.
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

In conclusion -
Contrasting Basic Assumptions aka why we can't agree on PSA.

PSA - Forgiveness is conditional, we need to make amends for wrongdoing, evil 'deserves' punishment, God is law giver and is concerned about maintaing cosmic law & order (cosmic cop) which requires crimes be punished. Justice is about what one deserves. PSA delivers punishment and forgiveness at the same time.


Non PSA - forgiveness is unconditional, God is not concerned with law and rules but with our having a good relationship with him and removing obstacles to that relationship. Justice is about equality and not about what one 'deserves'. The atonement then is about something else, e.g. matyrdom, triumph over ego, and death, God entering into our human nature including our pain etc.

---

Thank you so much for your two descriptions of the two positions which obviously aren't biased at all by your own point of view. Hmm, I wonder which one you think is morally superior.

I have to say I have had just about enough of the way my view and has been portrayed in this discussion despite my continued attempts to calmly and rationally explain it when, to be honest, most people who hold my view would have written the whole thing off as an authority of the Bible issue long ago.

So (once again) it is true to say that PSA says that forgiveness is conditional on something. To say that it rests on us "offering something to God" is, as I have said many times, a misrepresentation. The whole point of the model is that God in Himself meets "the condition" In that sense while forgiveness remains philosophically conditional, it is in no sense conditional from our point of view. Forgiveness is an unconditional gift to us, because God himself meets the condition. This is the essence of the "scandalous love of God" as JJ rightly called it in an earlier post.

quote:

---

Other predictions - PSA believers are likely to be law enforcement officers, accountants, auditors, physical scientists, corporate lawyers, directors of multinational companies, and vote Republican, Conservative; they support the death penalty.

Non PSA believers are social workers, teachers, clinicians, artists, marketing managers, human rights lawyers, public officials, vote for liberal parties, and were opposed to the death penalty.

---

Ah yes, this discussion has nothing to do with wanting to find the truth and submit to it at all, but is merely a reflection of the lifestyle choices I have already made.
Thanks so much for your charitable and intelligent view of this whole debate.
It gives me great pleasure to inform you that out of all the people I know who believe in PSA hardly any of them fit your prejudiced stereotyping ignorant models.

quote:

---

The bible was written by people who could not agree, read by people who would not agree and argued about by people who eventually realised they would never agree.

---

Oh rubbish.

I tried to back out of this discussion, but the crass ignorance of FP's last post moved me to contribute again. But now I really do want out of it, if it just boils down to the same old "all you are doing is imposing yourself on the text" dogma that no one on this site ever seems to want to question.
 

---

Posted by Talitha (# 5085) on :
 
Leprechaun, I for one am impressed by your calm and rational explanations. I love this thread for its balanced and cogent presentation of both sides, which is really helpful.

Fatprophet, your generalisations were pretty extreme and biased. Isn't it against the rules to make generalisations like that, not about the theologies themselves, but the kind of people who believe them?
Slight tangent: Imagine how much flak you would have got if you'd written (for example) "evangelical" and "liberal" instead of "PSA" and "non-PSA".

I'm leaning more to the non-PSA side, but even I can see that the God of PSA is also highly concerned with "our having a good relationship with him and removing obstacles to that relationship."
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Lep:

I would be sorry if you left this thread thinking that you have been patronised or your vews traduced. I, for one, am very grateful that you have been willing, in a polite, erudite manner, to dicuss these matters. Though we are probably no nearer agreement than when we started, I do feel that I have refined my views during the course of the discussion. Indeed, I have had to, in the light of your penetrative questioning. It is obvious from the things that you have written, that you have a lively, passionate faith, and you won't get any criticism about that from this direction. I really don't think that FatProphet's post was intended as patronising, though I suppose it could be thought of as something of a generalisation. Anyway, you have nothing but respect from this poster;

Pax

Jeremy
 

---

Posted by AB (# 4060) on :
 
Ok, just had another thought about this.

When we sin, do we sin against God? As in, does he feel it a wrong done to him, or does he consider it a wrong done to others or even self. Is the Law there for our benefit, or for God's?

And if it isn't a wrong done to God, is it right that justice be served when we are in effect serving a consequence of our actions already?

Hmmm, maybe one for another thread...

AB
 

---

Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on :
 
When King David slept with Bathsheba and had Uriah killed, he seemed to have thought he'd sinned against God.

Psalm 51:1-4
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0