|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "There was no other good enough to pay the price of sin"
|
scuffleball
Shipmate
# 16480
|
Posted
There has been some objection to this line.
Why is this? Is this something to do with PSA - which is why I'm cautiously posting this here?
--------------------
SPK: I also plan to create ... a Calvinist Ordinariate
ken: I thought it was called Taize?
Posts: 272 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Although we tend to talk it to death, I don't think PSA is a Dead Horse.
But BTW, who actually made that quote? I tried Bible Gateway, but no luck.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
There has been some objection to this line.
Why is this? Is this something to do with PSA - which is why I'm cautiously posting this here?
The objection is that the price of sin was set by God. God wrought amiss in the Garden of Eden. God, being judge, jury, and executioner, set the price. Then, realising the punishment was ridiculously harsh and the price was ludicrously high, God paid the debt God had imposed.
Or in other words "Under my arbitrary rules, you owe me fifty million dollars." [Insert Doctor Evil Laugh] "But my Son is going to pay it off for you. Isn't that nice of him? You therefore owe everything to my son."
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
scuffleball
Shipmate
# 16480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Although we tend to talk it to death, I don't think PSA is a Dead Horse.
But BTW, who actually made that quote? I tried Bible Gateway, but no luck.
CF Alexander
Posts: 272 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Although we tend to talk it to death, I don't think PSA is a Dead Horse.
But BTW, who actually made that quote? I tried Bible Gateway, but no luck.
It's from the hymn "There is a green hill far away."
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
This isn't a Dead Horse - so I'm moving it to Purgatory - same rules.
Louise
Dead Horses Host
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
It's from the hymn "There is a green hill far away."
Here is the stanza where the line occurs. quote:
There was no other good enough
To pay the price of sin.
He only could unlock the gate
Of heaven and let us in.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
People object to it because they see it as bringing in a whole package around penal subtitutionary atonement (PSA). Certainly it is language that is used within that metaphor of atonement, but it is also language present in the NT:
I don't think the language of the NT requires a particular model of atonement, but I think it is hard to argue that the idea of paying a price, and Jesus' unique status enabling him to do that are not thoroughgoing New Testament ideas.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Christian doctrine often tends to lose a bit of subtlety when it's made to rhyme and fit a common metre tune.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
People object to it because they see it as bringing in a whole package around penal subtitutionary atonement (PSA). Certainly it is language that is used within that metaphor of atonement, but it is also language present in the NT:<snip>
At least on my computer, every one of your links returns an error. Divine intervention?
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
People object to it because they see it as bringing in a whole package around penal subtitutionary atonement (PSA). Certainly it is language that is used within that metaphor of atonement, but it is also language present in the NT:
I don't think the language of the NT requires a particular model of atonement, but I think it is hard to argue that the idea of paying a price, and Jesus' unique status enabling him to do that are not thoroughgoing New Testament ideas.
'sall baggage, innit?
Take the song "Be still for the presence of the Lord".
(take it, pleasse, take it!)
Seriously, though, it seems to be making inroads as a communion hymn at churches further up the candle than where you'd ever have expected it to hear it.
Looking at the words on their own, it's easy to see how you can interpret it that way.
I can't, because I was in the charevo scene whence came the wretched (to me) thing back around the time it was written. And I'm pretty sure that in the writer's intention it's got bugger all to do with the Eucharist and everything to do with hands being hovered over people whilst the ministry team mutters in gobbledegook (if you're Gamaliel) or tongues (if you're Jolly Jape) and so on and so forth.
So I still hate it.
Of course, I could be wrong. Baggage doesn't have to be well informed.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
People object to it because they see it as bringing in a whole package around penal subtitutionary atonement (PSA). Certainly it is language that is used within that metaphor of atonement, but it is also language present in the NT:<snip>
At least on my computer, every one of your links returns an error. Divine intervention?
--Tom Clune
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) It does on mine too. I didn't check the links 'cos I used the site's own Quicklink generator to create them. I'll have another go...
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've noticed the 'Be Still For The Presence of the Lord' song catching on in other places beyond its immediate constituency - but that's been happening for some time.
A rule of thumb is that as soon as it appears on BBC's Songs of Praise you know that it's jumped across the boundaries and is becoming ubiquitous in all but the 'Highest' of High Church settings.
As for the 'Fanny Alexander' hymn, 'There is a green hill far away ...' it was pretty standard fare all over the place when I were a lad ... even in places that wouldn't have nailed their colours to a PSA mast necessarily.
I once heard a Methodist minister say that some had claimed that all the theology you needed could be found in that hymn. He didn't think so himself, but he could understand why some might claim so.
I also remember some evangelicals taking exception to elements within it - not the atonement aspects - but the 'try his works to do' element. We weren't to 'try' but to 'trust' ... God would work in us and through us without fleshly self-effort ... yadda yadda yadda ...
So it's not just the more liberal types or those squeamish about PSA who have voiced some concerns about this well known hymn.
But it's always going to be difficult, as has been said, to squeeze every bit of nuance and range into a regular, metrical, rhyming quartet.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
There has been some objection to this line.
Why is this? Is this something to do with PSA - which is why I'm cautiously posting this here?
The objection is that the price of sin was set by God. God wrought amiss in the Garden of Eden. God, being judge, jury, and executioner, set the price. Then, realising the punishment was ridiculously harsh and the price was ludicrously high, God paid the debt God had imposed.
Or in other words "Under my arbitrary rules, you owe me fifty million dollars." [Insert Doctor Evil Laugh] "But my Son is going to pay it off for you. Isn't that nice of him? You therefore owe everything to my son."
But neither the hymn nor scripture actually say that the price was set by God. Just that God announced it.
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
I've sorted the links now (using Bible Gateway instead) and checked them before reposting…
People object to it because they see it as bringing in a whole package around penal subtitutionary atonement (PSA). Certainly it is language that is used within that metaphor of atonement, but it is also language present in the NT:
I don't think the language of the NT requires a particular model of atonement, but I think it is hard to argue that the idea of paying a price, and Jesus' unique status enabling him to do that are not thoroughgoing New Testament ideas.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
I don't think the line (and hence the hymn) is exclusively PSA - think about the line,
"He only could unlock the gate
Of heaven and let us in."
Couldn't that also refer to CV?
Having said that PSA and CV aren't completely exclusive of each other.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I don't think the language of the NT requires a particular model of atonement, but I think it is hard to argue that the idea of paying a price, and Jesus' unique status enabling him to do that are not thoroughgoing New Testament ideas.
Paying a price to whom though? PSA says Jesus paid the price required by God, doesn't it? But the New Testament language of paying a price is in the context of a ransom, i.e. a price paid to a slave-owner for the release (redemption) of a slave. But that doesn't really fit with the PSA model - it's not God from whose enslavement we need to be released, is it?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Actually, I was going to say that paying the price of sin has nothing whatever to do with PSA>
Where is the punishment in 'there was no other good enough to pay the price of sin'?
ITSM that it's being used here as just another hammer with which to bash PSA. This line is all about ransom.
We are valuable in God's eyes, we have been taken prisoner by the devil/sin and we have 'been bought with a price' - not that the devil gets the money. He thought he was, as Jesus died, but the resurrection shows that Jesus having paid the price to ransom many, took the money back at the resurrection.
Stupid devil didn't see that coming! LOL
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clavus
Shipmate
# 9427
|
Posted
Gamaliel said:
quote:
'Be Still For The Presence of the Lord' ... is becoming ubiquitous in all but the 'Highest' of High Church settings.
Nowadays it is sometimes used at Benediction for children (instead of O Salutaris) while incense is offered to Jesus present in the Blessed Sacrament.
Posts: 389 | From: The Indian Summer of the C of E | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clavus:
Gamaliel said:
quote:
'Be Still For The Presence of the Lord' ... is becoming ubiquitous in all but the 'Highest' of High Church settings.
Nowadays it is sometimes used at Benediction for children (instead of O Salutaris) while incense is offered to Jesus present in the Blessed Sacrament.
I went to an ordination service at Lincoln Cathedral and they used it there.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We are valuable in God's eyes, we have been taken prisoner by the devil/sin and we have 'been bought with a price' - not that the devil gets the money. He thought he was, as Jesus died, but the resurrection shows that Jesus having paid the price to ransom many, took the money back at the resurrection.
Stupid devil didn't see that coming! LOL
Now this is interesting - are there two different understandings of PSA?
- Where the ransom is required by God
- Where the ransom is required by Satan
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
But neither the hymn nor scripture actually say that the price was set by God. Just that God announced it.
Somebody else set a price that God was forced to pay? Then that somebody else is more powerful than God.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We are valuable in God's eyes, we have been taken prisoner by the devil/sin and we have 'been bought with a price' - not that the devil gets the money. He thought he was, as Jesus died, but the resurrection shows that Jesus having paid the price to ransom many, took the money back at the resurrection.
Stupid devil didn't see that coming! LOL
Now this is interesting - are there two different understandings of PSA?
- Where the ransom is required by God
- Where the ransom is required by Satan
Er no. Penal substitutionary atonement is where, in a legal context, Jesus is the condemned prisoner suffering the penalty of God's justice.
It has nothing to do with paying prices.
That, a ransom, is an entirely different atonement theory.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
All of the atonement theories, like all analogies, fall when you push them too far.
The emphasis is basically on the value of the soul and the extent to which God is willing to ransom the captive soul. The 'price' paid is basically the full value of the soul.
The analogy falls down when you ask 'to whom is the 'money' paid?' That is entirely irrelevant, as far as the analogy is concerned. All that is needed is that we have been 'bought at a price.'
In other words, Christ's atoning death was sufficient to 'cover' the full value of the soul. There is nothing left to 'pay'.
Consummatum est.
The problem is that the medieval mind liked to nail down every aspect of a parable, allegory, so that every word had a meaning. We don't need to do that. Jesus mentioned often that he was giving his life a ransom for many. He never mentioned once to whom it may be paid, which suggests there wasn't a 'person' (i.e. the devil) who received it.
[ 05. March 2013, 15:45: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
But, Mudfrog, the penalty for sin is death - it is a price, though not in monetary terms.
"The wages of sin is death" - so who is the wage owed to?
You previously said
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...the resurrection shows that Jesus having paid the price to ransom many, took the money back at the resurrection.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
But, Mudfrog, the penalty for sin is death - it is a price, though not in monetary terms.
"The wages of sin is death" - so who is the wage owed to?
You previously said
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...the resurrection shows that Jesus having paid the price to ransom many, took the money back at the resurrection.
Yes, but PSA is about punishment, condemnation, the handing down of just sentence under the wrath of God.
Jesus, the innocent, takes the place of the guilty in the dock and the Father, the judge, hands down the death penalty to Jesus to suffer death in the place of the guilty, who goes free.
That is penal substitution.
Ransom simply 'pays' the value of the captive - just like in a kidnap situation.
It has nothing to do with penalty or substitution.
[ 05. March 2013, 16:02: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I think what we should not do however is to think that each atonement theory 'cancels out' another. You can hold to CV and also appreciate ransom and PSA. None of them are perfect theories - they are just ways of explaining the rich meaning of 'Christ died for us.' and trying to answer the question, 'how?'
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think what we should not do however is to think that each atonement theory 'cancels out' another. You can hold to CV and also appreciate ransom and PSA. None of them are perfect theories - they are just ways of explaining the rich meaning of 'Christ died for us.' and trying to answer the question, 'how?'
Agreed (with minor reservations about PSA...). As Tom Smail pointed out very well in "Windows on the Cross", there are a variety of "windows" through which we can look and try and make sense of the cross (and resurrection). They are all partial pictures, with their own strengths and weaknesses.
With regards to the line in question - I must admit that I've always been a little baffled by the people who have expressed a desire to avoid the hymn because of it. It doesn't actually say anything more than we already find in various parts of the NT. And it's (sort of) poetry - it doesn't have to be completely self-explanatory.
I'm very nervous about PSA theories, but I'll happily sing "There is a green hill far away" (In fact, I sang it with gusto this very afternoon!)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We are valuable in God's eyes, we have been taken prisoner by the devil/sin and we have 'been bought with a price' - not that the devil gets the money. He thought he was, as Jesus died, but the resurrection shows that Jesus having paid the price to ransom many, took the money back at the resurrection.
Stupid devil didn't see that coming! LOL
Now this is interesting - are there two different understandings of PSA?
- Where the ransom is required by God
- Where the ransom is required by Satan
But the understanding some people have of 'ransom' is unscriptural.
Lutron = the payment to an owner for a slave’s freedom or a captive’s ransom is not used in the Bible for anything like vicarious satisfaction or vicarious atonement to God for sin.
The sixth-century Persian emperor Cyrus conquered Babylon, freed and sent home those Jews taken into captivity by the Babylonians. And Cyrus did it not for price or reward says Isaiah 45:13 Cyrus not only freed them; he didn’t demand any ransom in return.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Oscar the Grouch
I must admit that I've always been a little baffled by the people who have expressed a desire to avoid the hymn because of it.
I remember a guy at a former church who refused to sing "There is a green hill far away" because of the line "where the dear Lord was crucified who died to save us all". "No", he said, "he only died to save the elect".
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Christian doctrine often tends to lose a bit of subtlety when it's made to rhyme and fit a common metre tune.
For that reason, I think it can be fine to express things in hymns in ways that wouldn't be acceptable in a sermon or an introduction to doctrine.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Where we cause chagrin to God by our sin, it is us who are in debt to God. He loves us so much that we were given Jesus to show us that our debt is cancelled out. God has taken the debt upon himself and set us free from it.
Even though the people were so cruel to his Son, the resurrection and subsequent gift of the Holy Spirit demonstrate the forgiveness of God. Now that's truly showing us the way.
There was no other good enough. Nobody except Jesus could have achieved this and left us with its good news message.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I remember a guy at a former church who refused to sing "There is a green hill far away" because of the line "where the dear Lord was crucified who died to save us all". "No", he said, "he only died to save the elect".
For a second, I had an urge to rewrite the first verse in a way which would be more pleasing to your Calvinist friend - but no, perish the thought! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Christian doctrine often tends to lose a bit of subtlety when it's made to rhyme and fit a common metre tune.
For that reason, I think it can be fine to express things in hymns in ways that wouldn't be acceptable in a sermon or an introduction to doctrine.
It's also, of course, possible to get most people to sing the most dreadful nonsense if you disguise it with a memorable tune.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Christian doctrine often tends to lose a bit of subtlety when it's made to rhyme and fit a common metre tune.
For that reason, I think it can be fine to express things in hymns in ways that wouldn't be acceptable in a sermon or an introduction to doctrine.
It's also, of course, possible to get most people to sing the most dreadful nonsense if you disguise it with a memorable tune.
[Ikea meatball]A quick thumb through any collection from Hymns Ancient and Prehistoric through to Songs of Fluffiness 45 or whatever they're up to by now will quickly inform you that the memorable tune is not required for this.[/Findus bolog'neighs']
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clavus
Shipmate
# 9427
|
Posted
The notorious (in his time) Bishop James Pike would not say the Nicene Creed, but he would happily sing it.
Posts: 389 | From: The Indian Summer of the C of E | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Where we cause chagrin to God by our sin, it is us who are in debt to God. He loves us so much that we were given Jesus to show us that our debt is cancelled out. God has taken the debt upon himself and set us free from it.
Even though the people were so cruel to his Son, the resurrection and subsequent gift of the Holy Spirit demonstrate the forgiveness of God. Now that's truly showing us the way.
There was no other good enough. Nobody except Jesus could have achieved this and left us with its good news message.
Maybe this will take us back to the OP. I wonder about the line "there was no other good enough". It implies that God was looking around for someone to martyr themselves for the punishment that God really needed to exact on himself. If Jesus is part of the Trinity, then the issue of 'there was no other' makes very little sense. I think that part of this issue is with crappy lyrics, rather than crappy theology, per se.
There are some useful things in this thread about trying to use theories (CV, PSA) as lenses through which to view the Crucifixion and Resurrection.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Where we cause chagrin to God by our sin, it is us who are in debt to God. He loves us so much that we were given Jesus to show us that our debt is cancelled out. God has taken the debt upon himself and set us free from it.
Even though the people were so cruel to his Son, the resurrection and subsequent gift of the Holy Spirit demonstrate the forgiveness of God. Now that's truly showing us the way.
There was no other good enough. Nobody except Jesus could have achieved this and left us with its good news message.
Maybe this will take us back to the OP. I wonder about the line "there was no other good enough". It implies that God was looking around for someone to martyr themselves for the punishment that God really needed to exact on himself. If Jesus is part of the Trinity, then the issue of 'there was no other' makes very little sense. I think that part of this issue is with crappy lyrics, rather than crappy theology, per se.
Let's remember that it was written for children and not be too harsh on the good lady who wrote it.
Also, she isn't far wrong - there was no other good enough:
quote:
I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside. Then one of the elders said to me, "Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals...
And they sang a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation." Revelation 5 v 4,5 & 9
And as far as the 'he only could unlock the gate of heaven' is concerned, we look here:
quote:
"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." Acts 4 v 12
I think if a writer can express profound eternal truths such as these in a form that even children can understand, then she is to be applauded. It's why this song is universally known whilst many other atonement hymns are less well-known and loved, and are often ignored.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Maybe this will take us back to the OP. I wonder about the line "there was no other good enough". It implies that God was looking around for someone to martyr themselves for the punishment that God really needed to exact on himself. If Jesus is part of the Trinity, then the issue of 'there was no other' makes very little sense. I think that part of this issue is with crappy lyrics, rather than crappy theology, per se.
There are some useful things in this thread about trying to use theories (CV, PSA) as lenses through which to view the Crucifixion and Resurrection.
In Trinitarian terms, that does make sense. It is part of the understanding, but only part. Not only are we not able to save ourselves - there is indeed no other good enough - but if you are saying, "the punishment that God really needed to exact on himself", then you could say that God having created what is for us a Catch 22, it falls to him to break the deadlock.
Going back to the two more fundamental questions:-
1. Frances Alexander was writing a hymn for children. So it's silly to criticise her for not trying to fit the more subtle arcanae of Atonement theology into Common Metre.
2. You can't strain the Atonement into any of the explanations as the one, full, perfect and sufficient explanation. The thing one can say with complete certainty is that anyone who insists that Christus Victor, PSA, Ransom, Moral Influence or whatever is either 'the only explanation' or outrageous is wrong.
Incidentally,
a. not all substitutionary explanations are penal: and
b different cultures and eras seem to find some explanations resonate more for them than others, are more helpful in leading them to grasping something of what the Atonement is about.
3. If somebody is really hostile to one of the explanations, it's worth asking them, or yourself, 'what is it about that explanation that is bugging them?' Usually, it seems to turn out to be either,
a. they are resistant to any suggestion that the Atonement, or any other part of the Christian message, has objective ontological supernatural effects; or
b. it's personal. They don't like the people they think like that explanation.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
I'm not normally known as being "soft" on PSA, but, as the lyrics from the good Mrs Alexander go, I take far more exception to
quote:
"The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate;
God made them high and lowly,
And ordered their estate"
than I do to anything in "TIAGHFA" (though I do think "and try His works to do" is a bit lame for the climax of the hymn).
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm not normally known as being "soft" on PSA, but, as the lyrics from the good Mrs Alexander go, I take far more exception to
quote:
"The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate;
God made them high and lowly,
And ordered their estate"
than I do to anything in "TIAGHFA" (though I do think "and try His works to do" is a bit lame for the climax of the hymn).
Which is why you'll not find it in any hymn book.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm not normally known as being "soft" on PSA, but, as the lyrics from the good Mrs Alexander go, I take far more exception to
quote:
"The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate;
God made them high and lowly,
And ordered their estate"
than I do to anything in "TIAGHFA" (though I do think "and try His works to do" is a bit lame for the climax of the hymn).
Which is why you'll not find it in any hymn book.
Really? Perhaps, like the ex-president, I misremembered, but I'm sure I didn't make it up ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Really? Perhaps, like the ex-president, I misremembered, but I'm sure I didn't make it up
You didn't make it up, but that verse is omitted from hymnals these days.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Christian doctrine often tends to lose a bit of subtlety when it's made to rhyme and fit a common metre tune.
For that reason, I think it can be fine to express things in hymns in ways that wouldn't be acceptable in a sermon or an introduction to doctrine.
It's also, of course, possible to get most people to sing the most dreadful nonsense if you disguise it with a memorable tune.
This attitude would be difficult to defend in a traditional Methodist context, because Methodists famously sing their theology. How can your theology be represented in your singing if you don't really care about the theological content of your hymns?
(I refer to 'a traditional Methodist context' because over time a church's theology can easily drift away from what it was when its favourite hymns were written. When this happens, traditional hymns are sung in order to celebrate a shared heritage, rather than to enunciate a shared belief.)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
The ransom, penalty, and substitution components of the atonement can be found in Gal.3:13. I say ‘can’ because this is obviously open to discussion, but I find the argument convincing. I don’t have the time or space to explain in detail, but simply give the bare outline.
The word translated as ‘redeemed’ is exēgorasen from exagorazō to buy or pay a price for (presumably from the marketplace, though I might be committing the etymological fallacy there). It has a very close meaning to the luō/lutron word group as indicated by their collocation in one semantic domain in Louw & Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains (definitions 37.127-37.138).
‘Curse’ is functionally equivalent to ‘punishment’ and hence the penal element – see Deuteronomy 27:26 (alluded to in verse 10)and Deut.28, and read ‘blessing’ as reward, and ‘curse’ as punishment; and here the LORD is clearly identified as the source of both blessing/reward and curse/punishment. Thus the LORD is the source of the curse, and Jesus becomes the object of it.
The substitution element comes from the phrase: genomenos huper hēmōn katara through a grammatical analysis of the use of the preposition huper, to which Daniel B Wallace devotes six-and-a-half pages in his book Greek Grammar beyond the Basics : An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, and discusses the options for understanding the meaning as representative (on behalf of) or as substitutionary (in place of, instead of), and comes down in favour of substitution.
This verse needs to be analysed in the context of Paul’s argument in the first three chapters of Galatians, which raises an interesting question as to who the ‘us’ refers to in 3:13. It might be that it is only the Jews, and not the gentiles, since only the Jews were under the Law, and therefore the blessings and curses of Deut.28. Hmm, interesting... Maybe we need to transfer to Kerygmania. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Angus
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And as far as the 'he only could unlock the gate of heaven' is concerned, we look here:
quote:
"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." Acts 4 v 12
[/QUOTE]
Bad translation and out of context.
The context is one of healing, not eternal destiny.
'Salvation' = wholeness = healing.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Frances Alexander was writing a hymn for children. So it's silly to criticise her for not trying to fit the more subtle arcanae of Atonement theology into Common Metre.
Not at all silly.
It is a pedagogical commonplace that we should not teach children things they must unlearn later.
Causing children 'to stumble;' is a very serious matter.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We are valuable in God's eyes, we have been taken prisoner by the devil/sin and we have 'been bought with a price' - not that the devil gets the money. He thought he was, as Jesus died, but the resurrection shows that Jesus having paid the price to ransom many, took the money back at the resurrection.
Stupid devil didn't see that coming! LOL
Now this is interesting - are there two different understandings of PSA?
- Where the ransom is required by God
- Where the ransom is required by Satan
But the understanding some people have of 'ransom' is unscriptural.
Lutron = the payment to an owner for a slave’s freedom or a captive’s ransom is not used in the Bible for anything like vicarious satisfaction or vicarious atonement to God for sin.
The sixth-century Persian emperor Cyrus conquered Babylon, freed and sent home those Jews taken into captivity by the Babylonians. And Cyrus did it not for price or reward says Isaiah 45:13 Cyrus not only freed them; he didn’t demand any ransom in return.
William Barclay has an excellent chapter on the world lutron in his book New Testament Words.
I summarised it here. This is in the context of Mark 10:45.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Excellent. Thank you for that.
And it's not PSA - so I don't understand the objection to TIAGHFA and the verse in question.
Are we saying now that not only was Jesus not under the penalty of sin, neither did he give his life a ransom?
Someone will soon say that they think the cross is also unnecessary.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
