|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "There was no other good enough to pay the price of sin"
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You might think that, Mudfrog, and I would have said the same at one time, but I'm not sure it's as simple and clear cut as that. Speak to the Orthodox. They regard Christ as Saviour and believe in the atonement and so on but not in the vicarious, penal-substitutionary way that you or that well-known hymn have articulated it.
Are you saying that the Orthodox don't see the need for a Saviour?
That said, in the context of some of the more liberal forms of Protestantism I think you have a case.
I don't know enough about Orthodoxy to say anything, for or against; and they are certainly not what I meant. There are those, however, who see any atonement theory that actually deals with sin as being offensive. My opinion of that is that it is simply because they do not recognise sin in their own lives, nor do they recognise that God has any reason to have an opinion anbout their so-called sin, even if it did exist.
--------------------
"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
In any case, it matters not to me which theory one favours over and against another - the truth is, the fact is, that all of them are true because not one of them expresses fully the depth of riches that we see in the cross.
There is not one theory of atonement I cannot accept - I thank God for them all, facets of the 'diamond of salvation' that they are. I cannot afford to ignore or discard any one of them.
One thing I must insist on however, is that the atonement does something forensically with my sin.
It must take it away and not just, say, provide an example of love, or show how victorious Jesus was. It must do something for me, for my sin.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I can see that, Mudfrog and I don't know enough about the other traditions to say how they deal or don't deal with that aspect.
However, don't you think it's a tad ad-hominem to suggest that people who take a different view of these things 'do not recognise sin in their own lives'?
I don't think I've ever met anyone with a broadly Christian faith position who would claim to be without sin or that sin didn't have an effect in their own life ... even if they defined sin differently to how you're doing here.
That seems a pretty reductionist approach on your part to me.
'They don't understand the atonement in the way that I do therefore they can't be that bothered about sin ...'
Don't get me wrong, I'm not seeking to minimise sin nor its effects. But it seems a bit of a jump to me to suggest that people who don't see things the way you do only do so because of their darkness of their minds or their winking at sin and what-have-you ...
'Do not judge lest ye also be judged ...' and so on.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
As an aside, this isn't the only thread where people claim an almost supernatural insight into what other people really think.
I for one am heartily sick of it, especially given that every time someone's said "you say/do that because..." they've been completely and utterly wrong.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
As an aside, this isn't the only thread where people claim an almost supernatural insight into what other people really think.
Don't I know it! ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Admittedly I'm not Orthodox, but I'm not convinced by the argument that Orthodoxy has a fundamentally different understanding of atonement.
Some extracts from the Catechism of St Philaret - this dates from the 1830s and so must be well out of copyright.
quote:
207. How does holy Scripture speak of this deliverance?
Of deliverance from sin:
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace". Eph 1:7.
Of deliverance from the curse:
"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law being made a curse for us". Gal 3:13.
Of deliverance from death:
"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that hath the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who, through fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage". Heb 2:14-15.
208. How does the death of Jesus Christ upon the cross deliver us from sin, the curse, and death?
... Therefore as in Adam we had fallen under sin, the curse, and death, so we are delivered from sin, the curse, and death in Jesus Christ. His voluntary suffering and death on the cross for us, being of infinite value and merit, as the death of one sinless, God and man in one person, is both a perfect satisfaction to the justice of God, which had condemned us for sin to death, and a fund of infinite merit, which has obtained him the right, without prejudice to justice, to give us sinners pardon of our sins, and grace to have victory over sin and death.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Mudfrog quotes a hymn which insists on seeing Jesus as our substitute.
He does not deal with the real problem. A substitute may indeed pay the penalty of sin but one thing a substitute cannot do is to incur the guilt which is associated with a sinful act.
In plain English - guilt cannot be transferred; it can only be forgiven.
IMO Christ's death justifies God in offering us a free forgiveness. Which is very different from saying it justifies us in some way.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
Being something of a novice to Orthodoxy, my understanding is that we do not have any problem with the two extracts of St Philaret which Enoch posted.
The problem seems to be with the idea that Christ died for our sins to appease an angry God and pacify His wrath. This would mean that on the cross, the Father and the Son could not be One God. The other issue would be who the Sacrifice would be offered to in heaven - would the Son offer the Sacrifice of Himself to the Father? Again, if that were to be the case we should have serious problems with Trinitarian doctrine.
--------------------
"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:
Being something of a novice to Orthodoxy, my understanding is that we do not have any problem with the two extracts of St Philaret which Enoch posted.
The problem seems to be with the idea that Christ died for our sins to appease an angry God and pacify His wrath. This would mean that on the cross, the Father and the Son could not be One God. The other issue would be who the Sacrifice would be offered to in heaven - would the Son offer the Sacrifice of Himself to the Father? Again, if that were to be the case we should have serious problems with Trinitarian doctrine.
You should read some Moltmann then - both |father and Son suffer, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. it is a parody of PSA to say that Jesus appeases an angry God. If that were so, then we would have to be adoptionists.
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
I'm still trying to figure out what sort of green hills have city walls, or what's special about those which don't. Am I up against doggerel? ......"And try his works to do"- aaaaargh!
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I'm still trying to figure out what sort of green hills have city walls, or what's special about those which don't. Am I up against doggerel? ......"And try his works to do"- aaaaargh!
You know that 'without' in this context means 'outside'? Does that help?
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I'm still trying to figure out what sort of green hills have city walls, or what's special about those which don't. Am I up against doggerel? ......"And try his works to do"- aaaaargh!
An old British tradition it is the words to twist, the grammar to wreck so as the metre to fit.
(I say British rather than English because the worst offender is the Scottish Psalter. The great Fathers of Scottish Presbyterianism: Calvin, Knox and Yoda.)
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
An old British tradition it is the words to twist, the grammar to wreck so as the metre to fit.
(I say British rather than English because the worst offender is the Scottish Psalter. The great Fathers of Scottish Presbyterianism: Calvin, Knox and Yoda.)
The writer of the psalter Scots
His words canna be beaten
Nae Caledonian he, in stead
A Maister was at Eton.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Mudfrog, I agree with you that it's a misunderstanding of PSA to cast it in terms of the appeasement of an angry God - but unfortunately, it's often understood and presented that way by many evangelicals ... particularly those of a more Calvinistic or neo-Calvinistic persuasion.
That said, I'm not entirely sure it's absent across the rest of evangelicalism either ... at least in its more 'populist' form if I can put it that way without sounding elitist.
There are grotesque court-room images and all manner of wierd and wonderful presentations and analogies in popular evangelicalism ... just as there are wierd and wonderful presentations of Catholic doctrine in popular Catholicism ...
It strikes me that we're all walking a tight-rope and trying to express the inexpressible to some extent - and it's very easy with ANY of the atonement models to overstep the mark.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I'm still trying to figure out what sort of green hills have city walls, or what's special about those which don't. Am I up against doggerel? ......"And try his works to do"- aaaaargh!
You know that 'without' in this context means 'outside'? Does that help?
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
An old British tradition it is the words to twist, the grammar to wreck so as the metre to fit.
(I say British rather than English because the worst offender is the Scottish Psalter. The great Fathers of Scottish Presbyterianism: Calvin, Knox and Yoda.)
Perhaps if the hymn had been written by someone Scottish, they would have used the word 'outwith' and saved all the confusion.
Angus
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
2 of my sons were born on that hill that is 'without' a city wall ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Let me explain.
In Northern Ireland, the city of Londonderry has walls. Across the River Foyle is a hill called Altnagelvin, the hill of sparrows, and Mrs Alexander could see this hill from the Bishop's house inside the city walls. It was her inspiration for the hymn about a green hill without a city wall.
My boys were born there because there is a large hospital built upon it.
--------------------
"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
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You should read some Moltmann then - both |father and Son suffer, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. it is a parody of PSA to say that Jesus appeases an angry God. If that were so, then we would have to be adoptionists.
If one follows Moltmann, one becomes patripassionist.
I don't believe so, because the Father didn't die on the cross. Only the Son died, but the Father also suffered the loss of his son.
Moltmann suggests "When the crucified Jesus is called 'the image of the invisible God' the meaning is that this is God, and God is like this." (The Crucified God, p205)
For Moltmann, this is not a case of a vengeful Father punishing his innocent Son for, "the Christ event on the cross is a God event...the father suffers the death of his Son...He also suffers the death of his Fatherhood." He also says that the "community" of Father and Son is "expressed precisely at the point of their deepest separation."
This idea of the suffering Father could be set alongside Barth's view that the Judge is himself judged.
This gets rid of the false idea that a wrathful, vengeful Father is smiting his innocent Son.
An idea that NT Wright further overturns with the comment that God didn't condemn his Son, he "condemned sin in the flesh."
--------------------
"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
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
While I understand the desire out of Christian charity to be inclusive and accommodating of different theories of the atonement, I must confess to being sceptical of that position because critical elements in them appear to be mutually exclusive. As far as Mrs Alexander is concerned ISTM that the words under discussion, "pay the price of sin", could be supportive of ransom theories, or, if understood as paying a fine or penalty, as PSA.
I would want to question: "He died that we might be forgiven". After all, Jesus forgave sinners in the course of his ministry prior to the cross. I would also want to suggest that atonement is about "reconciliation", which requires an act by more than one party, whereas forgiveness does not, as demonstrated by Christ's forgiveness of those who crucified him.
Regarding TIAGHFA as a whole I think it's pretty low level stuff in which "suitable for children" has become confused with "infantile"; and we might more profitably concern ourselves with the grown-up theology of hymns like: "Sing, my tongue, the glorious battle.." (Venantius Fortunatus) and "When I survey the wondrous cross..." (Isaac Watts).
On the offending stanza in "All things bright and beautiful" the question is not whether it's included in modern hymnbooks, but whether it was ever included in some hymnbooks and not others. My guess is that the Anglicans would have been less likely to exclude it than Nonconformists, but I stand to be corrected.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
...
I would want to question: "He died that we might be forgiven". After all, Jesus forgave sinners in the course of his ministry prior to the cross.
...
Jesus’s atoning self-sacrifice on the cross, acting as both High Priest and victim (and the event of the crucifixion was the moment of curse substitution: “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree” (Gal.3:13b ESV)) was the key event for redemption, justification, forgiveness, reconciliation, and salvation in the whole of human history. It was an event within time which had (and has) extra-temporal effect.
It acted prospectively to allow forgiveness for the rest of time until the establishment of the New Creation at the Second Coming, and it acted retrospectively for all time back to the first Creation (or, perhaps more accurately, the Fall). The temple sacrifices of animals prefigured this event, and to answer specifically the point raised by Kwesi, the forgiveness expressed by Jesus during his ministry was done in anticipation of the atonement which he would make on the cross. As the writer to the Hebrews puts it: “...without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” (Heb.9:22) (And the rest of Hebrews 9 and 10 is relevant here as well, especially 9:26 & 28.)
Angus
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to expand slightly the text of my second paragraph to give a clearer explanation. Please substitute the following:
...the forgiveness expressed by Jesus during his ministry was done in anticipation of the atonement which he would make on the cross – the atonement retrospectively enabled and validated the forgiveness that Jesus had pronounced. This is to fulfil the requirements of the Sinai Covenant law, as noted by the writer to the Hebrews: “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” (Heb.9:22, referring back to Lev.17:11)
Angus
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
That's one view. One might say "Under the law there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood, but under grace?"
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That's one view. One might say "Under the law there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood, but under grace?"
but Jesus died 'under the law.'
His was the final Mosaic sacrifice - he was the Lamb of (provided by) God.
He was born under the law in order to redeem those under the law.
Grace started after the resurrection - although many would say that grace is actually seen in the provision of the Lamb.
--------------------
"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 A.Pilgrim:
...the forgiveness expressed by Jesus during his ministry was done in anticipation of the atonement which he would make on the cross – the atonement retrospectively enabled and validated the forgiveness that Jesus had pronounced.
I'm not so sure about this - we seem to be telling God what He can and cannot do.
I think it's much more simple - Jesus could forgive sins, because He was God, and had the Authority to do so. This is what all the controversy with the Pharisees was all about - to them, Jesus saying, "Your sins are forgiven you" was the same as Jesus saying He was God.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
...the forgiveness expressed by Jesus during his ministry was done in anticipation of the atonement which he would make on the cross – the atonement retrospectively enabled and validated the forgiveness that Jesus had pronounced.
I'm not so sure about this - we seem to be telling God what He can and cannot do.
I think it's much more simple - Jesus could forgive sins, because He was God, and had the Authority to do so. This is what all the controversy with the Pharisees was all about - to them, Jesus saying, "Your sins are forgiven you" was the same as Jesus saying He was God.
--------------------
"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 Mudfrog:
His was the final Mosaic sacrifice - he was the Lamb of (provided by) God.
Was it Mosaic? Who was the priest who offered this sacrifice? Because Jesus, our Great High Priest who offered himself, is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, not after the order of Aaron.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If one follows Moltmann, one becomes patripassionist.
I don't believe so, because the Father didn't die on the cross. Only the Son died, but the Father also suffered the loss of his son.
I think it depends what one means by 'suffer'.
AIUI, in theo-speak 'suffer' is usually translating the Latin patior (pati, passus sum) which is the root of the word 'passive', and which has the sense of undergoing a change as a result of being acted upon by external influences. In this sense of the word, God cannot suffer because there is no external influence powerful enough to act on Him (the contrary belief being, as leo says, the heresy of Patripassionism or Theopaschitism).
However, that is a rather specialist sense of the word 'suffer'.
I think if we are allowed to use human analogies, we could say that God the Father suffered like Jan Palach (who chose to set himself on fire without external compulsion) while God the Son suffered like Maximilian Kolbe (who did not prevent other people from killing him when he had the opportunity).
--------------------
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
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That's one view. One might say "Under the law there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood, but under grace?"
At the risk of re-working what Mudfrog has posted, the grace of God was shown in the process whereby Jesus placed himself under the curse of the law so that those who had been under the curse of the Law no longer were – they were redeemed from the curse of the Law. (Gal.3:13) (And as Mudfrog said, grace was shown in the provision of the redeeming sacrifice.)
To expand the reference I made to Hebrews 9&10, once the redeeming sacrifice had been made as a single once-for all atonement, this grace could then be apprehended by all those who are faithful to Jesus:
(Starting at Heb.9:24, quoting ESV, and with my explanation in sq. brackets) “For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands”,[i.e. the tabernacle, as the high priest did, see context of the preceding verses of Heb.9] “which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself... Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own” [the blood was of bulls and goats] “for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once and after that comes judgment, so Christ having been offered once to bear the sins of many will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.”
Jumping to 10:11: “And every priest stands daily at his service offering repeatedly the same sacrifices which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God... For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.”
And thanks to the grace of God in providing this sacrifice for sins, the position of the Christian believer is explained in 10:19ff:
“Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain” [i.e. the curtain that separated the holy of holies from the rest of the tabernacle or temple] “that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience” [an allusion to the sprinkling with blood by the high priest for cleansing and demonstration of the covenant – see Heb.9:19-21, Lev.14:4 and Ex.24:8] “and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful”
That’s the best I can do, and I don’t really have the time for an in-depth exposition of the first four chapters of Galatians and most of the book of Hebrews. And this is a subject which proves the truth of the saying that you’ll never understand the New Testament if you don’t know the Old Testament.
Incidentally, there are still two questions unanswered in my own mind: firstly is it only Jews that were under the curse of the Law, and if so, where does that leave gentiles? And secondly, on the day of atonement, there were two goats, one sacrificed as a sin-offering, and the other a live goat which bore the iniquities of the people of Israel into the wilderness, so how does that pre-figure the atonement which Jesus accomplished? I’m still working on those...
To respond to Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
His was the final Mosaic sacrifice - he was the Lamb of (provided by) God.
Was it Mosaic? Who was the priest who offered this sacrifice? Because Jesus, our Great High Priest who offered himself, is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, not after the order of Aaron.
The whole of Hebrews chapters 7-10 is a discussion of the Mosaic covenant and sacrificial system, and how it relates to and prefigures the atoning sacrifice of Christ. But you are quite right that Jesus was not a Levitical priest (he could not be, since he was from the tribe of Judah). The requirement for a priest not of the order of Aaron is explained in Hebrews 7, notably v.11: “Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?”(ESV)
To respond to Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
...the forgiveness expressed by Jesus during his ministry was done in anticipation of the atonement which he would make on the cross – the atonement retrospectively enabled and validated the forgiveness that Jesus had pronounced.
I'm not so sure about this - we seem to be telling God what He can and cannot do.
...
I don’t think it’s a case of telling God what he can and cannot do, but rather explaining how God goes about doing what he does. I agree with you that Jesus in claiming to forgive sins was claiming to be God (and representing God the Father), but if on those occasions the sins were forgiven just by Jesus saying so, with no connection at all to any atonement, then why was his atoning sacrifice necessary at all? If God could forgive the sins of the people Jesus spoke to, without any atonement, then why was that not available for everyone else as well? Why did Jesus need to offer himself as an atoning sacrifice, as the book of Hebrews explains, if forgiveness could be granted merely by an authoritative pronouncement? It seems entirely inconsistent for Jesus to forgive the sins of some people merely on an authoritative word, while the sins of others require atonement. My formulation, namely that Jesus’s pronouncement of forgiveness was done in anticipation of the atonement that he would make on the cross, in order to provide the mechanism for that forgiveness, eliminates that inconsistency.
The question comes down to: Why did God the Father require an atoning sacrifice in order to forgive sins? That’s the heart of the point about what God “can and cannot do.” The answer? I haven’t a clue. It’s a mystery. It just seems to be that way from the information that we have at the moment, where we see dimly... When we see God face to face, we may well understand.
It’s a good job that God did provide the sacrifice that would provide the mechanism for forgiveness. Without it we’d all be screwed.
Angus
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
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.
But that "somebody else" isn't a person - it's the fact that God is incapable of acting contrary to his nature. I don't think that omnipotence in the Christian sense means that God can perform any string of words we conjure up - it only means that God is capable of doing anything free of contradiction. So God was forced to pay the price only in the same sense that he was "forced" to love us, because an unloving God and an unjust God are equally impossible.
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
The whole of Hebrews chapters 7-10 is a discussion of the Mosaic covenant and sacrificial system, and how it relates to and prefigures the atoning sacrifice of Christ. But you are quite right that Jesus was not a Levitical priest (he could not be, since he was from the tribe of Judah). The requirement for a priest not of the order of Aaron is explained in Hebrews 7, notably v.11: “Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?”(ESV)
How can a non-Levitical priest offer a Mosaic sacrifice? Melchizedek didn't offer Mosaic sacrifices because Moses hadn't been born yet. Jesus' sacrifice can't possibly be Mosaic. The quote you quote seems to prove that, not disprove it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
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.
But that "somebody else" isn't a person - it's the fact that God is incapable of acting contrary to his nature.
Now you're trying to have it both ways. The price wasn't set by God, it was set by the way God is? Huh?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
It's stranger than that. It means that God, in the Lord's Prayer and the parable of the unforgiving servant, and reinforced throughout the NT, requires us to do something he cannot by his very nature do - forgive unilaterally out of our own forbearance.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
It's stranger even than that, I think. It means that both God and the nature of sin are not easily reflected in analogies about 'ordinary' human transactions.
The grace of God (of God's own motion) comes when God (the Son) is made incarnate and lives, suffers and dies for the redemption of humankind, and when God (the Father) sends him, and allows that to happen to him.
The significance of the cross is not just that it is God declaring his will to forgive, but also that God in his own person takes upon himself the cost of delivering humankind from the consequences of sin.
The implication of that is that there is something in the way that sin separates us from God, some 'logical impossibility', which means that the separation cannot simply be removed by God's will to forgive, but also needs God's act of atonement.
In other words there is some way, which isn't totally accessible to human reason, in which it is no more possible for God to remove the consequences of sin by simply saying "I forgive you" than it is possible for God to make something so heavy that he cannot lift it.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
BroJames - That seems to me to be an excellent summary - thank you. I think that's the nearest we're going to get.
Mousethief - I think I'm starting to follow your point. Allow me some thinking time to review the evidence. My mind grinds exceeding slow.
Karl - I have a hunch, and this is pretty much a guess on my part, that the difference between God forgiving us and the command (expressed also in the parable you refer) for us to forgive others, is that when God is sinned against it is an offence against his ultimate holiness, which is perhaps why the atoning sacrifice is required.
This is not the case when one person sins against another. The personal injury done to the one sinned against, who then needs to forgive, is not going to be to their holiness.
Angus
[Edited for typo]
[ 13. March 2013, 21:13: Message edited by: A.Pilgrim ]
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
Mousethief - I think I'm starting to follow your point. Allow me some thinking time to review the evidence. My mind grinds exceeding slow.
As long as the bits of bone left in the sausage aren't detectible, speed of grinding matters not.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
The significance of the cross is not just that it is God declaring his will to forgive, but also that God in his own person takes upon himself the cost of delivering humankind from the consequences of sin.
God got ripped off.
We still sin.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
He counted the cost. We're worth it.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
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.
Mark - a very interesting question on which the Fathers (as you probably are aware) reflected. Since Scripture never answers that question, I'm inclined to think we should read this as an analogy not to be pressed too far. The point of the analogy is to describe the effect of Christ's death and resurrection rather than the process.
We can have some delightful speculations as to whom the ransom was paid (sin - which Paul personifies perhaps?) but perhaps better to focus, as the NT does, on the outcome.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
"The wages of sin is death" - so who is the wage owed to?
The sinner of course. That's how the sentence is set up.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
God removes the consequences of sin, not in some weird, ineffable, inaccessible scale of justice, but in the resurrection and the judgement to come.
The time of the restitution of all things.
Everything else is Babylonian-Judeo-Persian-Roman metaphor.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
The whole of Hebrews chapters 7-10 is a discussion of the Mosaic covenant and sacrificial system, and how it relates to and prefigures the atoning sacrifice of Christ. But you are quite right that Jesus was not a Levitical priest (he could not be, since he was from the tribe of Judah). The requirement for a priest not of the order of Aaron is explained in Hebrews 7, notably v.11: “Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?”(ESV)
How can a non-Levitical priest offer a Mosaic sacrifice? Melchizedek didn't offer Mosaic sacrifices because Moses hadn't been born yet. Jesus' sacrifice can't possibly be Mosaic. The quote you quote seems to prove that, not disprove it.
@Mousethief OK, the understanding that I’ve come to so far is that the requirement for an atoning self-sacrifice performed by Jesus was under the Sinai Covenant (aka Mosaic) Law, while the process by which it was offered did not conform fully to the rituals specified in the Law, for example for it to be performed by a Levitical priest. Some of the consequences of the sacrifice are specified by the Law, such as the cursed status of anyone hanged on a tree Deut.21:22-23 referenced by Gal.3:13.
I guess that a possible challenge to the validity of such a sacrifice is countered by what the author of the book of Hebrews wrote in Heb.7:1-10, pointing out that Melchizedek was superior to all the Levitical priesthood, thus the sacrificial offering made by a priest of the order of Melchizedek will be equally effective (or even more so).
How does that fit with your understanding, MT?
Angus
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
A.Pilgrim, thanks for answering my post. I'm not trying to be difficult for the sake of being difficult, and indeed this is a difficult passage embodying a difficult concept. So thanks for bearing with me. My overall take on it, is that it is a Melchizidekian thing, and the Mosaic sacrificial system is being brought in as an analogy but not meant to describe what was actually happening, which was a Melchizidekian priest offering a Melchizidekian sacrifice, the inner nature of which is ultimately a mystery (unlike the Aaronic sacrifices which are pretty well spelled out).
The Aaronic system does require the high priest to make an atonement for himself, but of course not OF himself. There is no human sacrifice in the Mosaic Law, and the prophets fought tooth and nail against the cult of Moloch. So I don't understand it when you say that the Sinai Covenant called for a self-sacrifice.
Nor am I quite sure the applicability of the verse "cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree" to the sacrificial system, occurring as it does not in the section of the Law laying out the sacrificial system, but in a section having to do with the well-ordering of the house of Israel.
The Melchizidekian priesthood being superior to the Levitical priesthood I quite agree with. It is anterior in time, and Melchizidek himself was clearly superior to Abraham, seeing as Abraham, quite capable of making his own sacrifices, defers to him and accepts his blessing.
I wonder if maybe we aren't closer to each other than we seem, and are seeing it through different lenses and thus seem farther away.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
... indeed this is a difficult passage embodying a difficult concept....
You're not wrong there! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
...
I wonder if maybe we aren't closer to each other than we seem, and are seeing it through different lenses and thus seem farther away.
Yes, I think that in the great scheme of things we're pretty close, with some details yet to resolve. There is more that unites us than divides us, not least the desire to understand God's revelation to the best of our abilities. I guess we come from very different theological and ecclesial backgrounds, but I am happy to engage thoughtfully here. Thank you.
On the substance of the unquoted parts of your post, I need some thinking time to consider your points carefully.
Angus
[ 23. March 2013, 22:48: Message edited by: A.Pilgrim ]
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
To pick up the points in Mousethief’s last post.
quote:
The Aaronic system does require the high priest to make an atonement for himself, but of course not OF himself. There is no human sacrifice in the Mosaic Law, and the prophets fought tooth and nail against the cult of Moloch. So I don't understand it when you say that the Sinai Covenant called for a self-sacrifice.
I hope that we can start from the common ground that Jesus did offer himself as a sacrifice. Heb.7:26-27
and Heb.9:25-26 provide evidence for that. But was it a requirement of the Mosaic Law?
On one hand, an argument could be constructed as follows.* Jesus was Jewish (an Israelite) and therefore subject to the Mosaic Law himself. Unlike the Israelites, who failed to comply with it, he followed it perfectly. One of the requirements of the Mosaic Law was that there was no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood. (Heb.9:22 referring to Lev.17:11, and atonement was a pre-requisite for forgiveness, as can be found, for example, in Lev.5:13 or Lev.6:7). So in order to make a sacrificial offering to atone for the sins of the world, (acclaimed as such by John the Baptist) and provide forgiveness of sins to anyone who appropriates to themselves this atonement, Jesus complied with this requirement of the Mosaic Law.
(As an aside, notice the word ‘world’ in that last sentence. The more that I think about it, the more I wonder whether Jews and gentiles are in different situations. I suggest that because only Jews are under the Mosaic/Sinai Covenant Law, it was for their forgiveness that Jesus offered himself as an atoning sacrifice under that Law. Where that leaves the gentiles, I will drop for the time being.)
The Apostle Paul gives another element (or consequence) of this atoning process when in Gal.3
:13 he refers to the curses (aka ‘punishments’ ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) which the Israelites were subjected to as a result of their failure to keep the Covenant Law – warned of in Deut.28:15-68 – being transferred to Jesus, so that those who had been under the curse no longer were. So to your objection: quote:
Nor am I quite sure the applicability of the verse "cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree" to the sacrificial system, occurring as it does not in the section of the Law laying out the sacrificial system, but in a section having to do with the well-ordering of the house of Israel.
I can only reply by saying that it was Paul wot dun it – he made the application and I’m simply representing it.
As regards human sacrifice, I agree that the OT law and prophets spoke against it being done by humans but I wonder if this is something prohibited because God reserves it to himself. Perhaps it is like vengeance, which God only is allowed to perform. Or like worship, which is evil if it is done to anyone or anything other than God (since it becomes idolatry). So maybe Jesus, in his divine nature, made an entirely valid and acceptable human sacrifice of his own human nature. There’s an interesting application of the hypostatic union.
And if we’re looking at the subject of human sacrifice, we do need to remember God’s testing of Abraham in commanding him to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice. Admittedly, Abraham in the end doesn’t actually perform the sacrifice, but it would seem a bit inconsistent for God to command something that was universally evil.
On the other hand I can see that an argument could be made that the sacrificial offering that Jesus made was not as a requirement of the Mosaic Law, but under a different sacrificial system, of which the Mosaic sacrificial system and covenant was an inferior foreshadowing of and parallel to the superior covenant instituted by Jesus. (See most of Hebrews 7&8, theme carries on into chapters 9 and 10). This is a view with which I am very unfamiliar, and for the moment I cannot explain how this different sacrificial system would also have a requirement for the shedding of blood in order for forgiveness to be available. Can you help here, Mousethief, with an elucidation of this alternative view? AFAIK sacrifices made before the Mosaic Law were simply offerings to God, not as atonement which would provide forgiveness, but I am open to any information which would clarify this.
Angus
*You might be able to tell that I’m trying to work this out as I write. A very good way of testing one’s own understanding of a subject is to try to explain it to someone else – at which point one discovers the inadequacies within that understanding.
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
I hope that we can start from the common ground that Jesus did offer himself as a sacrifice.
Yes.
quote:
But was it a requirement of the Mosaic Law?
The Mosaic Law, considered from its own internal logic, could have plodded along indefinitely without Jesus' sacrifice.
As you say, Jesus was without sin, so he didn't need blood to atone for his sins. But the author of Hebrews most explicitly says the Mosaic Law makes nothing perfect. So yet another sacrifice under the Mosaic Law wouldn't have done a darned thing. What was needed was a sacrifice under some other system, and thus the Melchizidekian priest (namely Jesus) was required to make a sacrifice. This seems all laid out in Hebrews 7.
Oh, I see you address this later. To answer your question from there: the atonements from before the law that we have are atonements in the Adam-to-Aaron line, so to speak -- the main thread of salvation history. Melchizidek comes from outside that line -- a parallel line perhaps, or maybe he was sui generis -- and thus is an animal of a different stripe. What applies to Cain's sacrifice or Abraham's needn't apply to Mel's.
And of course in Genesis 14, Melchizedek doesn't make a sacrifice at all; he merely blesses Abraham and feeds him. So the Melchizedekian sacrifice is something we can only infer from Hebrews.
Hebrews 9, I think, shows that Jesus' sacrifice is not an Aaronic one, but that rather the Aaronic system is a shadow of the real one Jesus used (one is tempted to say "Platonic", thinking of the Forms and their representations on earth; if it's not too distasteful an analogy I think it can be enlightening here (no pun intended)). Christ's tabernacle is not the earthly tabernacle; it's "not made by hands." From which it follows that his "holy places" aren't the Aaronic ones, but of a higher order.
Oh hell, I see in verses 23-24 it makes it quite explicit -- the earthly temple/tabernacle is in fact a copy of the heavenly ("true") one:
quote:
Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
Moving on...
The "whole world" thing makes my point, I think, quite plain. Only Jews can be atoned for by the Jewish atonement system. To atone for everybody, Jesus had to step outside that system, to a universal priesthood, viz, that of Melchizidek.
Regarding the "hang on a tree" thing, I don't understand your point; if you could elucidate or restate I would be grateful.
Regarding Abraham and the not-sacrifice of Isaac, quote:
Admittedly, Abraham in the end doesn’t actually perform the sacrifice, but it would seem a bit inconsistent for God to command something that was universally evil.
I think perhaps God never intended for him to carry it out, and was using this as a teaching lesson about the non-permissibility of human sacrifice and the sufficiency (or at least the desired-of-God-ity) of animal sacrifice in its stead.
quote:
A very good way of testing one’s own understanding of a subject is to try to explain it to someone else – at which point one discovers the inadequacies within that understanding.
Absolutely! And I'll be perfectly honest, I'm doing a good bit of that here myself.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Mudfrog quote:
There is not one theory of atonement I cannot accept - I thank God for them all, facets of the 'diamond of salvation' that they are. I cannot afford to ignore or discard any one of them.
Mudfrog, isn't this a cop-out, given that they are mostly incompatible? Would it not be better to suggest they are all unacceptable? Why not discard them all and accept the mystery?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Yes. Bit like the goodwill and charitable approach which says that all faiths/religions are equally true and valid.
Except that Mudfrog wouldnt go with that.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Oh I think he would. Equally true and valid covers a multitude of sins. Although some are more true and valid at that ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) level than others.
NOTHING is a 'good' as Christianity after all ...
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
