quote:

---

The importance of rejecting substitutionary atonement is tough to overstate, with ramifications across the full spectrum of spiritual, social, and cultural engagement. In fact, it’s likely one of the key reasons for the steep decline in mainline churches. After all, when the purpose of Christ’s presence on earth is ripped from its eternal context and placed firmly within (and relegated to) the world of “social justice” and earthly systems of oppression, there’s little that church offers that, say, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Occupy Wall Street, or a subscription to Mother Jones can’t also supply

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
As far as one is aware there is no orthodox theory of the atonement.

---

quote:

---

His chariots of wrath the deep thunderclouds form, And dark is His path on the wings of the storm.

---

quote:

---

The chariots of heaven the deep thunderclouds form, And bright is God's path on the wings of the storm.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Devil's Ransom, anyone?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Isn't it Orthodox to acknowledge the scriptural evidence re wrath in God? I recall a homily from Chysostom re earthquakes etc in the crucifixion accounts for example. But the gist of the argument was that God's wrath was manifested in the elements because of what was being done to Jesus i.e. God's 'pissed-offness' related to human cruelty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Someone on Ship of Fools - Evensong, I think - recently noted that the word usually translated as 'wrath' could just as well mean 'outrage'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:


Also, on occasions when I've been at events where an adapted version has been used I couldn't help feeling personally insulted and somewhat unwelcome. As if people like me who hold theology like mine should be edited out of Church life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
SCK

There are underlying issues here. Most systematic works re God's "nature" find it unlikely that He could be changeable, therefore His "wrath" cannot be "outrage' since 'outrage' is not a settled state. I think the underlying concept is best translated in English as 'implacable opposition'. God's opposition, if it exists in this form, is not 'moved' by 'feelings'.

Of course the biblical images of God are more dynamic than that picture of God as an 'unmoved mover'. Some folks characterise that as the difference between a "Greek" understanding of the Perfect Deity and the Jewish pictures of God in the Torah.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
According to UK Copyright Service it is illegal to make changes to someone else’s work without the permission of the owner regardless of whether it is for commercial gain or even just for a time of worship. The owner has economic rights and moral rights which protect him/her for acts such as this.

The next time I am forced to sing an adapted version of In Christ Alone I will be reminding the person responsible for the order of the service of this law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
Are there any constraints to the omission of some verses of a hymn/song? Are churches free to leave out whatever they like, given that the hymn was composed as a whole?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
Similarly, given that the song was written in one particular form, is it appropriate to then sing it fifteen times over?

---

'Appropriate' is a matter for personal judgement but I'd be very surprised if there were any legal implications to repeating a song, leaving out a verse or two, actually singing 'love' even though the words say 'wrath'...

Of course, the latter would probably have to be explained in advance so everyone knows what's going on. With simple repeats of the chorus and suchlike, the music leader can direct the congregation in real-time (so to speak).
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Someone on Ship of Fools - Evensong, I think - recently noted that the word usually translated as 'wrath' could just as well mean 'outrage'.

---

The hymn is used a lot in our Church, this is the bit which I can't sing -

"Till on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied -
For every sin on Him was laid;"

Substituting 'wrath' with 'outrage' is not much better.

Why would God be satisfied by Jesus death? If God is so angry with us then she must still be - we haven't changed!

In my view, God is love.

Therefore God is hurt by our sin, not wrathful.

I sing the hymn and either skip those lines or substitute 'love' for 'wrath'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The latter is understandable (eg How can guilt be transferred? How can temporal suffering atone for eternal judgment?), but equally cogent logical criticisms can be made of orthodox doctrines such as the Incarnation and the Trinity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
People should be able to sing a hymn without changing a word that refers to a (perfectly reasonable) theory of atonement that many Christians belive in.

However some people, as we can see from this thread, cannot. Instead it turns into a Dead Horse bugaboo. In Christ Alone is a beautiful hymn that moves many people to think about the cross and the Gospel, but for some people all they think about is how annoyed they get by 'wrath'.

Ultimately, the Gospel is "that Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor 15:3 for one example), not an explicit understanding of "for our sins" means PSA or anything else. A hymn's aim is to draw people to the Gospel, not a particular understanding of it.

So those people who sing 'love' instead of 'wrath', even though I think they are being weaker brothers because of it, I think we should not start waving around words like copyright control (and nor have Townend or Getty).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
If some liberals are unhappy about the wording, then why not also ditch the words "In Christ alone"? After all, in our inclusive, relativistic age, such wording is horribly exclusive...

---

I think you're mistaking "Christians whose theology leads them to reject PSA" with "godless libruls". Try again.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
To me, this represents a problem that I see elsewhere - non-con-evos singing songs from the charismatic con-evo corner because they're "lively" and "modern" and then coming to grief on the con-evo theology therein because, well, they're not con-evos.

I think this happens because unfortunately the modern hymn-writing on the liberal side is a bit, well, thin on the ground. It seems to mostly (and I see at once how the definition of "modern" is stretched here) date from a sort of 1960s-ish period when there was a move to modern language services and modern translations of the Bible. Not to mention "100 Hymns for Today", the contents of which are mostly rather forgettable.

I'm rambling.

When it comes down to it, is anyone other than the charismatic con-evos writing new stuff that's actually being sung? Garth Hewitt (bless him) had a go a couple of decades back with "Walk the Talk" which I actually quite liked (I know, I know, heart's in the right place though and what he lacks in harmonic variety he makes up for in passion - DO NOT BUY THE ALBUMS THEY ARE DIRE) but disappeared rapidly into obscurity.
 

---

Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on :
 
Leprechaun - dammit! Your Google skills are clearly superior to mine. Although I would still say that he has expressed his general opinion but taken no action against any perpetrators. Of course it is cheeky to mess around with author intention and copyright, and of course liberals should get over themselves, but would we rather they get worked up (over what is, again, an issue that is important but secondary to the Gospel) over a beautiful hymn so much so that the entire effect is ruined? Again, they are weaker brothers, 'for whom Christ died'.

MattBlack - I would say because 'In Christ alone' is a fundamental part of the Gospel. Without that, there is nothing. The same is not true of PSA (even though I would hold to PSA myself).
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
Leprechaun - dammit! Your Google skills are clearly superior to mine. Although I would still say that he has expressed his general opinion but taken no action against any perpetrators. Of course it is cheeky to mess around with author intention and copyright, and of course liberals should get over themselves, but would we rather they get worked up (over what is, again, an issue that is important but secondary to the Gospel) over a beautiful hymn so much so that the entire effect is ruined? Again, they are weaker brothers, 'for whom Christ died'.

MattBlack - I would say because 'In Christ alone' is a fundamental part of the Gospel. Without that, there is nothing. The same is not true of PSA (even though I would hold to PSA myself).

---

I'm not actually sure the issue is to do with the centrality of PSA or not. Even from that interview Townend thinks it is central, and the issue is to do with, as Matt said, respecting the song that he actually wrote. In that, I actually respect the decision that the PCUSA have taken. If they don't believe in PSA, they shouldn't sing the song.
Finally nearly everyone I know IRL who rejects PSA does also reject the idea that salvation is found in Christ alone, so I think Matt's right that there are other issues too, even if he didn't express it very eirenically.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
When it comes down to it, is anyone other than the charismatic con-evos writing new stuff that's actually being sung?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
When it comes down to it, is anyone other than the charismatic con-evos writing new stuff that's actually being sung?

---

How about the Vineyard? Charismatic but not particularly con-evo, I'd say. Maybe not really what you're looking for, I don't know...

Declaration of interest - I'm part of a Vineyard church!

---

Poisoned for ever by the execrable "Isn't he beautiful"
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
To me, this represents a problem that I see elsewhere - non-con-evos singing songs from the charismatic con-evo corner because they're "lively" and "modern" and then coming to grief on the con-evo theology therein because, well, they're not con-evos.

I think this happens because unfortunately the modern hymn-writing on the liberal side is a bit, well, thin on the ground.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

Finally nearly everyone I know IRL who rejects PSA does also reject the idea that salvation is found in Christ alone, so I think Matt's right that there are other issues too, even if he didn't express it very eirenically.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

Finally nearly everyone I know IRL who rejects PSA does also reject the idea that salvation is found in Christ alone, so I think Matt's right that there are other issues too, even if he didn't express it very eirenically.

---

There are whole denominations (RC and Orthodox, for two) who don't hold to PSA. I'm reasonably certain you know at least a few Catholics...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
If some liberals are unhappy about the wording, then why not also ditch the words "In Christ alone"? After all, in our inclusive, relativistic age, such wording is horribly exclusive...

---

Hence my use of the word 'some'.
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
All this is what happens when you make theology rhyme. And fit it to a tum-ti-tum metre.

And then accompany it with one of the lute's bastard siblings.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
The accompanying music is in fact quite old-fashioned: one can easily play it as a hymn accompanied by a piano, organ (stop sniggering!) or other keyboard.
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
According to UK Copyright Service it is illegal to make changes to someone else’s work without the permission of the owner regardless of whether it is for commercial gain or even just for a time of worship. The owner has economic rights and moral rights which protect him/her for acts such as this.

The next time I am forced to sing an adapted version of In Christ Alone I will be reminding the person responsible for the order of the service of this law.

---

This begs two further questions:

1 Are there any constraints to the omission of some verses of a hymn/song? Are churches free to leave out whatever they like, given that the hymn was composed as a whole?

2 Similarly, given that the song was written in one particular form, is it appropriate to then sing it fifteen times over?

Do tell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ButchCassidy:

So those people who sing 'love' instead of 'wrath', even though I think they are being weaker brothers because of it, I think we should not start waving around words like copyright control (and nor have Townend or Getty).

---

Townend has actually.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
False distinction.

1) Acceptance of PSA and acceptance of CV are in no way contradictory. Denying either is denying scripture though.
2) There are other models of atonement beside those two. Devil's Ransom, anyone?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
...., this is the bit which I can't sing...
.

---

I always make a point of singing those lovely lines specially loud in my out-of-tune voce to make up for the poor misguided folk in other churches who don't like them because they don't understand them

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Precisely. It seems most odd that a hymn that came out of Newfrontiers; a Reformed, charismatic, complementarian new church setting should be adopted by open evangelicals leftwards only after some pretty serious theological bastardisation. It's disrespectful and disingenuous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There are whole denominations (RC and Orthodox, for two) who don't hold to PSA. I'm reasonably certain you know at least a few Catholics...

---

quote:

---

1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men.

---

quote:

---

602 [...] Man's sins, following on original sin, are punishable by death. By sending his own Son in the form of a slave, in the form of a fallen humanity, on account of sin, God "made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

603 Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned. But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father, he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Having thus established him in solidarity with us sinners, God "did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all", so that we might be "reconciled to God by the death of his Son".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I've said it before here; there is something in my personal reflections on the cross which is helped by relating to the slow, dying ralentando from Handel's Messiah - oratorio "All we like sheep".

"And ... the Lord .. has laid on Him ..( has ..laid .. on .. Him)

The iniquity ... of ... us .. All."

---

Which is a quote from Isaiah 53. That sort of language is Biblical. We can't expunge it from the Church without cutting our history off at the knees.

Someone's going to be along in a minute to say that the original of intention of the writer of Isaiah 53 was almost certainly not to talk about a future Messiah, never mind God Incarnate, but about either the whole people of Israel at the time of the fall of Jerusalem, or else about an individual (one of the last kings most likely) taken as a representative of all Israel at that time.

But so what? God is quite capable of inspiring a prophet to speak or write words that mean different things to different people. God's Word is rich and complex and there is no reason at all a passage can't speak to its immediate historical context and to a later prophetic one. And as God is the God of history and the history of Israel is both a type of Christ and the preparation for his work then what God says about one is often also true of the other.

And in this case the connection is explicitly made by the New Testament, by Philip in Acts, and by the author of Matthew in Matthew chapter 8. So Christians have undeniable authority for using the language of the Servant Songs to talk about Jesus
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 

 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ButchCassidy:

So those people who sing 'love' instead of 'wrath', even though I think they are being weaker brothers because of it, I think we should not start waving around words like copyright control (and nor have Townend or Getty).

---

Townend has actually.

---

I doubt if he will ever hear me singing 'love' instead of 'wrath'.
I
I will continue to do it. Weaker brother or not, I'd rather my theology was weak than cruel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If God is like that, I can't worship him. Presumably that means I'll burn with 'em.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...I have to accept that most of the people I love the most will suffer eternally; that God is intending to torment them for ever... But this God also expects me to love, serve and worship him. How does one actually do that? How does one align oneself with a God whose intention is to torment, eternally, the people one loves?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...I have to accept that most of the people I love the most will suffer eternally; that God is intending to torment them for ever... But this God also expects me to love, serve and worship him. How does one actually do that? How does one align oneself with a God whose intention is to torment, eternally, the people one loves?

---

I think there are two strands to the counter-argument. First, in eternity those of us who escape the eternal torture will see the justice of God's punishment of those who failed to follow him during their earthly existence.

Secondly, God doesn't exactly intend to torment anyone for eternity, rather his character (love and justice together) make any other option simply impossible. [EDIT - impossible for those who don't follow God in this life]

I must say, though, I've become increasingly troubled by this argument over the last 2-3 years - once I discovered that (shock!) not all Christians believed in the concept of eternal conscious torment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:


If God is like that, I can't worship him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Presumably that means I'll burn with 'em.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ButchCassidy:

So those people who sing 'love' instead of 'wrath', even though I think they are being weaker brothers because of it, I think we should not start waving around words like copyright control (and nor have Townend or Getty).

---

Townend has actually.

---

I doubt if he will ever hear me singing 'love' instead of 'wrath'.
I
I will continue to do it. Weaker brother or not, I'd rather my theology was weak than cruel.

---

And I'll go for true over nice every time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
And I'll go for true over nice every time.

---

You'd probably enjoy the company of the Pharisees then.

---

Calling people names is a personal attack. Don't.

Gwai
Purgatory Host

[ 05. August 2013, 14:39: Message edited by: Gwai ]
 

---

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :
 
As an Anglo-Cath lawyer with a copyright background, who fancies himself as a bit of a musician/liturgist, if anyone's ever stupid enough to let me loose on an order of service, it shall read as follows:

The wrath of God was satisfied -
For every sin on Him was laid;,*

and then at the bottom of the page: "In this parish, it is customary to replace the text in italics with:
His sacred mother at his side
Our every sin on Him was laid"


 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Agree with Karl. All of my family were atheists, going back generations, and most of them had a happy life, and went to a happy death.

If they are in hell, then I am an Australian cricket fan. I just don't believe it, and I can't respect a religion which says it.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
This is the thing though. I know no-one; not a single person, who has chosen to reject God.

Don't believe he exists, even though they'd love to do so, yes. Struggle to believe that Christianity has some special insight into what he's like, check. But say "yes, God's there but I reject him" - nope, not a single one.

So for me the "respecting our choice to reject God" argument is dead in the water since none of the people I know have done that.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
And I'll go for true over nice every time.

---

You'd probably enjoy the company of the Pharisees then.

---

Calling people names is a personal attack. Don't.

Gwai
Purgatory Host

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This is the thing though. I know no-one; not a single person, who has chosen to reject God.

Don't believe he exists, even though they'd love to do so, yes. Struggle to believe that Christianity has some special insight into what he's like, check. But say "yes, God's there but I reject him" - nope, not a single one.

So for me the "respecting our choice to reject God" argument is dead in the water since none of the people I know have done that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
As an Anglo-Cath lawyer with a copyright background, who fancies himself as a bit of a musician/liturgist, if anyone's ever stupid enough to let me loose on an order of service, it shall read as follows:

The wrath of God was satisfied -
For every sin on Him was laid;,*

and then at the bottom of the page: "In this parish, it is customary to replace the text in italics with:
His sacred mother at his side
Our every sin on Him was laid"

---

 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I have only encountered this hymn twice.

The first time, I sang it, once i got used to the tune, until just after the offending words, at which point I closed my mouth.

The second time, I remained seated throughout.

I avoided a possible third - during an interregnum,, I was asked to officiate at the archdeacon's visitation as it was being held in one of our churches. Having seen the order of service, which included that hymn, I declined and explained why. Some clergy in the deanery also wrote to her and the bishop indicating their unwillingness to sing such 'subChristian doggerel.'

As well as being subchristian, the attitudes that go with PSA are dangerous:

quote:

---

When the dominant theology portrays a God willing to shed innocent blood through violence for the sake of redemption, it is all too easy for the institutional powers that claim to speak on behalf of God to decide where else blood must be shed to preserve that redemption. So infidels are massacred, pagan savages are slaughtered, witches are burned, Jews are marked for extermination, blacks are lynched, . . . and gays are bashed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This is the thing though. I know no-one; not a single person, who has chosen to reject God.

Don't believe he exists, even though they'd love to do so, yes. Struggle to believe that Christianity has some special insight into what he's like, check. But say "yes, God's there but I reject him" - nope, not a single one.

So for me the "respecting our choice to reject God" argument is dead in the water since none of the people I know have done that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:


Also, on occasions when I've been at events where an adapted version has been used I couldn't help feeling personally insulted and somewhat unwelcome. As if people like me who hold theology like mine should be edited out of Church life.

---

I do, I think, understand what you're saying but I'm not sure how

"For on that cross, when Jesus died/the love of God was realised" or somesuch

excludes you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
people don't always think about the words they sing if they like the tune.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
While others such as daronmedway can make more substantive points, from my POV as a believer in a literal hell, can I also add that having "having wrestled with this apparent unjust God for many years, my family also being non-believers but recognising that my thoughts are not God's thoughts" written off as "an excessively legalistic and inhumane interpretation of the law that Jesus would disagree with" also "really boils my piss"?

Thank you, etc

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
leo, I think ++Justin knew precisely what he was doing when he chose that hymn. Did they do the wrath bit though, or did some bright spark at Canterbury break copyright law by introducing some ill-conceived doggerel of their own?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
people don't always think about the words they sing if they like the tune.

---

As Bishop Stephen Sykes, my college principal, always reminded me after I'd scowled through a hymn/song at the College Communion, "when one sings, one isn't on oath."

Thurible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
leo, I think ++Justin knew precisely what he was doing when he chose that hymn. Did they do the wrath bit though, or did some bright spark at Canterbury break copyright law by introducing some ill-conceived doggerel of their own?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In my totally untheological, pew-fodder way, I think it must be part of our challenge to see these two elements in one and the same God. I'm not sure how Christianity works if God is only kind and never wrathful, but neither does it make sense if wrath obliterates kindness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
people don't always think about the words they sing if they like the tune.

---

As Bishop Stephen Sykes, my college principal, always reminded me after I'd scowled through a hymn/song at the College Communion, "when one sings, one isn't on oath."

Thurible

---

No - but it is important 'witness' to the true faith.

As a socialist and republican i also used to sit for the national anthem when they played it in cinemas in the old days.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
While others such as daronmedway can make more substantive points, from my POV as a believer in a literal hell, can I also add that having "having wrestled with this apparent unjust God for many years, my family also being non-believers but recognising that my thoughts are not God's thoughts" written off as "an excessively legalistic and inhumane interpretation of the law that Jesus would disagree with" also "really boils my piss"?

Thank you, etc

---

That's fine; I'm not an apologist for Evensong. Perhaps you could though go into how you worship this God at the same time as believing he's going to torment your nearest and dearest in hell for eternity. This is a genuine question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by trouty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
people don't always think about the words they sing if they like the tune.

---

As Bishop Stephen Sykes, my college principal, always reminded me after I'd scowled through a hymn/song at the College Communion, "when one sings, one isn't on oath."

Thurible

---

No - but it is important 'witness' to the true faith.

As a socialist and republican i also used to sit for the national anthem when they played it in cinemas in the old days.

---

I see - you don't like being offended but you don't mind offending other people. How very nice of you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
While others such as daronmedway can make more substantive points, from my POV as a believer in a literal hell, can I also add that having "having wrestled with this apparent unjust God for many years, my family also being non-believers but recognising that my thoughts are not God's thoughts" written off as "an excessively legalistic and inhumane interpretation of the law that Jesus would disagree with" also "really boils my piss"?

Thank you, etc

---

That's fine; I'm not an apologist for Evensong. Perhaps you could though go into how you worship this God at the same time as believing he's going to torment your nearest and dearest in hell for eternity. This is a genuine question.

---

In fact, the old conundrum was: would you rejoice at the spectacle of your mother in hell? If not why not?

Of course, it's shot through with holes - you could never know that your mother is in hell. But in a thought experiment, presumably you would rejoice to see God's justice at work, although you might also lament your mother.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Tangential, but I've often meant to ask, and this "true/nice" dichotomy has made me do so.

Suppose the sort of theology that we weak liberals consider cruel is true. Suppose that, for example, everyone who's not a Christian will suffer eternally in Hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Hell and PSA are separate issues. Why are they being conflated here?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Tangential, but I've often meant to ask, and this "true/nice" dichotomy has made me do so.

Suppose the sort of theology that we weak liberals consider cruel is true. Suppose that, for example, everyone who's not a Christian will suffer eternally in Hell.

---

By the same token, I'd like to ask how people can ever hope for justice to be truly done if no-one gets punished for their wickedness? The only robust way I've found to release genuine forgiveness is to acknowledge that their sin can be paid for in only one of two places: 1) In Christ on the cross, or 2) in hell. I can evangelise them in the hope of saving them from hell, or I can leave them to their wickedness in the hope that they die unsaved. The second option doesn't sit right with me, so the only option left is to pray and work for the salvation of the wicked.

As for you family, I don't know. It's a problem I have too, but I simply do not feel free to reject what I see in scripture. Yes, I question it but I don't contradict it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
By the same token, I'd like to ask how people can ever hope for justice to be truly done if no-one gets punished for their wickedness? The only robust way I've found to release genuine forgiveness is to acknowledge that their sin can be paid for in only one of two places: 1) In Christ on the cross, or 2) in hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Who shall I send?

Here I am Lord...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
By the same token, I'd like to ask how people can ever hope for justice to be truly done if no-one gets punished for their wickedness?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Hell and PSA are separate issues. Why are they being conflated here?

---

Becasue Leo thinks the world is dvided into two kinds of people - evangelicals whio are murderers and rapists and child abusers who that believe in a made-up fascist God that wants everyone to go to Hell; and everybody else, who is just like Leo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Why do you keep using the word 'nice' as if it's an insult?

Nice = love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

God is the God of all these. Not the God of wrath. We look for revenge and wrath. God looks for forgiveness and reconciliation.

---

• Love - In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 1 John 4:10
• Joy - Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. Hebrews 12:2
• Peace - Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant. Hebrews 13:20
• Patience - I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false. Revelation 2:2
• Kindness - Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity towards those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. Romans 11:22
• Goodness - But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Saviour appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Saviour, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Titus 3:4-7
• Faithfulness - Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4 By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written,
  
  “That you may be justified in your words,
  and prevail when you are judged.”
  
  But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? Romans 3:1-6
• Gentleness - 23 Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. 2 Timothy 2:23-25a
• Self-control - God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control. 2 Timothy 1:7

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Hell and PSA are separate issues. Why are they being conflated here?

---

Becasue Leo thinks the world is dvided into two kinds of people - evangelicals whio are murderers and rapists and child abusers who that believe in a made-up fascist God that wants everyone to go to Hell; and everybody else, who is just like Leo.

---

You know better than that comment, which is beneath you.

---

I don't know if it's beneath ken in terms of intention but it certainly is uncharacteristic in its incomprehensibility.

 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Wrath rhymes with earth? In what accent? It doesn't even rhyme when it's Cape Wrath.
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
Wrath rhymes with earth? In what accent? It doesn't even rhyme when it's Cape Wrath.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Why do you keep using the word 'nice' as if it's an insult?

Nice = love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

God is the God of all these. Not the God of wrath. We look for revenge and wrath. God looks for forgiveness and reconciliation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stejjie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Why do you keep using the word 'nice' as if it's an insult?

Nice = love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

God is the God of all these. Not the God of wrath. We look for revenge and wrath. God looks for forgiveness and reconciliation.

---

The trouble is that the Bible speaks a lot about God's wrath and even Jesus seems to see it as a reality. And I don't think it's sufficient to try and ignore those passages or focus purely on God's love at the expense of His wrath (not least because I think they're somehow connected).

C S Lewis' (him again) description of Aslan from The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe comes to my mind: good, but not safe. God is the greatest good we can imagine - and then some. God is the greatest love we can imagine - and then some. But precisely because of that goodness and love, God (ISTM) must be opposed to sin. And that opposition, I think, is something of what God's "wrath" is about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
daronmedway, throwing a load of half verses at words doesn't equal an argument.

You dislike the word nice. You dislike the idea of God being nice. You use the word nice as an insult. You have yet to explain why.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
but invariably in a context which simply doesn't accord with the "nice" fluffy girly-god of liberal imagination.

---

quote:

---

adjective

1 giving pleasure or satisfaction; pleasant or attractive:we had a very nice time
(of a person) good-natured; kind:he’s a nicer man than MarkJoe had been very nice to her
ironic not good; unpleasant:that’s a nice way to come into my kitchen—no greeting!
2 (especially of a difference) slight or subtle:there is a nice distinction between self-sacrifice and martyrdom
requiring careful consideration:a nice point
3 archaic fastidious; scrupulous.
But she is nice and coy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
but invariably in a context which simply doesn't accord with the "nice" fluffy girly-god of liberal imagination.

---

As opposed to the MANly god of the MANly conservative evangelical iMANgination? Did we mention that he's MANly?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
the "nice" fluffy girly-god of liberal imagination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There are whole denominations (RC and Orthodox, for two) who don't hold to PSA. I'm reasonably certain you know at least a few Catholics...

---

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

quote:

---

1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men.

---

I'm sure someone can tell us why that's not at all the sort of thing Protestants mean when they say that Jesus died for our sins, but I'd have trouble putting a fag paper between them.

Or in another place:

quote:

---

602 [...] Man's sins, following on original sin, are punishable by death. By sending his own Son in the form of a slave, in the form of a fallen humanity, on account of sin, God "made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

603 Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned. But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father, he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Having thus established him in solidarity with us sinners, God "did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all", so that we might be "reconciled to God by the death of his Son".

---

Someone else might see a significant difference between that description and the idea that Jesus was punished for our sins but its not obvious to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Hell and PSA are separate issues. Why are they being conflated here?

---

Becasue Leo thinks the world is dvided into two kinds of people - evangelicals whio are murderers and rapists and child abusers who that believe in a made-up fascist God that wants everyone to go to Hell; and everybody else, who is just like Leo.

---

You know better than that comment, which is beneath you.

---

quote:

---

So infidels are massacred, pagan savages are slaughtered, witches are burned, Jews are marked for extermination, blacks are lynched, . . . and gays are bashed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Becasue Leo thinks the world is dvided into two kinds of people - evangelicals whio are murderers and rapists and child abusers who that believe in a made-up fascist God that wants everyone to go to Hell; and everybody else, who is just like Leo.

---

You know better than that comment, which is beneath you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
the "nice" fluffy girly-god of liberal imagination.

---

This comment appears sexist to me.

Do you have a problem with feminine strength?

There is nothing macho whatever about Jesus - thank God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stejjie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Why do you keep using the word 'nice' as if it's an insult?

Nice = love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

God is the God of all these. Not the God of wrath. We look for revenge and wrath. God looks for forgiveness and reconciliation.

---

The trouble is that the Bible speaks a lot about God's wrath and even Jesus seems to see it as a reality. And I don't think it's sufficient to try and ignore those passages or focus purely on God's love at the expense of His wrath (not least because I think they're somehow connected).

C S Lewis' (him again) description of Aslan from The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe comes to my mind: good, but not safe. God is the greatest good we can imagine - and then some. God is the greatest love we can imagine - and then some. But precisely because of that goodness and love, God (ISTM) must be opposed to sin. And that opposition, I think, is something of what God's "wrath" is about.

---

I would agree with you, I just don't think nice unbelievers are deserving of God's wrath compared to (for example) destruction of the environment or animal cruelty. Somebody not believing in God because of say, a bad experience with the church is not deserving of Hell just for that.

Personally, this is why a purgatory system makes the most amount of sense to me.

---

I hugely want to agree with you (perhaps not about the purgatory bit
) as I'm not sure that what the Bible means by "belief" and "faith" are how my own tradition has described them - I think we've gone somehow awry. I also struggle with the idea that God would punish someone just for holding wrong concepts in their heads especially, as you say, if those are there because of hurts caused by the church: if the church presents a damaging image of God, if the church acts in ways that prevent people seeing the love of God, then I think that angers God and the church has to be careful.

But... personally, I can't rule out belief as unimportant entirely. As I've said, I'm fairly sure there'll be surprises both pleasant and unpleasant when we reach the End. I'm sure that belief has as much to do with actions as it does with ideas in our heads. I just don't think the crucial importance of some kind of faith in Jesus can be ruled out, either.

I don't know how it all works, I've more questions that I do answers. I do think God is holding out an open invitation to all to know His love, new life and to be part of the new creation He's establishing. It's all the details, especially those who (for want of a better term) fall outside of this that I struggle with.
 

---

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
'In Christ Alone' has a great tune and words that are, on average, much better than most modern evangelical songs. BUT, I won't sing the unedited version.

Surely it's not that hard to express a view of the Atonement that is orthodox and humane, in words easily understood by the common man and singable to a rousing tune. Newman did it magnificently in 'Praise to the Holiest in the Height', but then he was both a genius and a saint, which probably helped.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
The idea that Jesus died for our sins is atonement. To atonement PSA adds the penal and the substitutionary bits.

---

quote:

---

Neither state that Jesus was punished or substituted for us. The third quote says that Jesus assumed solidarity with us which is I think almost an opposite to saying that Jesus substituted for us.

---

quote:

---

I agree that the language in Isaiah 53 if taken as a literal statement of doctrine does imply PSA.

---

quote:

---

But the passage is highly figurative...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
the "nice" fluffy girly-god of liberal imagination.

---

This comment appears sexist to me.

Do you have a problem with feminine strength?

There is nothing macho whatever about Jesus - thank God.

---

I have a very strong wife with higher academic qualifications than I. She has established a highly successful charity focused on the alleviation of suffering, poverty and distress leading to relational and familial breakdown. She is a qualified social worker with experience in child protection. She also happens to hold a complementarian view of ministry in the church in her own right on the basis of her understanding of Scripture. She would be similarly dismissive of your effeminate god, so no, it's not sexist. It's biblical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
The idea that Jesus died for our sins is atonement. To atonement PSA adds the penal and the substitutionary bits.

---

I think I'd rather say that the idea that we can be reconciled with God is "atonement". The idea that Jesus died for our sins is just one way of talkiogn about atonement. And PSA is a particular spin on that.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Neither state that Jesus was punished or substituted for us. The third quote says that Jesus assumed solidarity with us which is I think almost an opposite to saying that Jesus substituted for us.

---

That's a metaphorical bridge toio far for me I think. The two ways of speaking seem pretty much the same to me.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I agree that the language in Isaiah 53 if taken as a literal statement of doctrine does imply PSA.

---

And it was used by the New Testament writers. I honestly think that is enough for us to take it seriously. Which is not the same as demanding that no other language is used.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

But the passage is highly figurative...

---

And In Christ Alone isn't?!!!!! It sounds as if you are holding Stuart Townend up to a higher standard that the Pope!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
the "nice" fluffy girly-god of liberal imagination.

---

This comment appears sexist to me.

Do you have a problem with feminine strength?

There is nothing macho whatever about Jesus - thank God.

---

I have a very strong wife with higher academic qualifications than I. She has established a highly successful charity focused on the alleviation of suffering, poverty and distress leading to relational and familial breakdown. She is a qualified social worker with experience in child protection. She also happens to hold a complementarian view of ministry in the church in her own right on the basis of her understanding of Scripture. She would be similarly dismissive of your effeminate god, so no, it's not sexist. It's biblical.

---

Using girly as a slur is sexist. THAT is the issue, nothing to do with your wife's achievements (which nobody mentioned). What would be wrong with God being girly?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Of course it wouldn't. I've addressed this on the Christian manliness thread, but God is masculine and feminine - so of course He can be girly. It's the way you presented girly as something bad which is sexist, or came across as sexist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Of course it wouldn't. I've addressed this on the Christian manliness thread, but God is masculine and feminine - so of course He can be girly. It's the way you presented girly as something bad which is sexist, or came across as sexist.

---

Well, I think it would be bad if the "masculinity" of God is denied, occluded or removed. What IS sexist is the relentless drive for divine femininity or at best androgyny, as if masculinity is a bad thing or something which needs to be controlled, augmented and amended.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
The doctrines of the Incarnation and Trinity are carefully phrased so as not to state anything that is formally logically contradictory. They can't be understood, but the incomprehensible bit is the concept God, or, if you like, a non-finite non-material being. We're being told that a particular concept 'God' does not work in the same way as other concepts.

On the other hand, the logical problems with PSA are grounded in concepts that we understand and use in our social interactions - guilt and justice. We're being told that those concepts work in this case in a way that is flatly contradictory to the way those very concepts work in every other case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
The doctrines of the Incarnation and Trinity are carefully phrased so as not to state anything that is formally logically contradictory. They can't be understood, but the incomprehensible bit is the concept God, or, if you like, a non-finite non-material being. We're being told that a particular concept 'God' does not work in the same way as other concepts.

On the other hand, the logical problems with PSA are grounded in concepts that we understand and use in our social interactions - guilt and justice. We're being told that those concepts work in this case in a way that is flatly contradictory to the way those very concepts work in every other case.

---

False dichotomy.

---

quote:

---

The Trinity “can’t be understood” precisely because it is “formally logically contradictory”.

---

quote:

---

No amount of exegetical sleight of hand can remove PSA from the NT, so we have no choice but to believe as best we can where we can’t fully comprehend.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Solidarity means that A shares something with B. Substitution means that A does it and B doesn't. If the lorry drivers strike along with the shipworkers that's solidarity; if the lorry drivers strike and the shipworkers keep on working that's substitution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Of course it wouldn't. I've addressed this on the Christian manliness thread, but God is masculine and feminine - so of course He can be girly. It's the way you presented girly as something bad which is sexist, or came across as sexist.

---

Well, I think it would be bad if the "masculinity" of God is denied, occluded or removed. What IS sexist is the relentless drive for divine femininity or at best androgyny, as if masculinity is a bad thing or something which needs to be controlled, augmented and amended.

---

Could you please bring this over to the Christianity and manliness thread?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Well, I think it would be bad if the "masculinity" of God is denied, occluded or removed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
I would be all in favour of banning the word'substitution' once and for all and substituting 'vicarious' instead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Of course it wouldn't. I've addressed this on the Christian manliness thread, but God is masculine and feminine - so of course He can be girly. It's the way you presented girly as something bad which is sexist, or came across as sexist.

---

Well, I think it would be bad if the "masculinity" of God is denied, occluded or removed. What IS sexist is the relentless drive for divine femininity or at best androgyny, as if masculinity is a bad thing or something which needs to be controlled, augmented and amended.

---

Could you please bring this over to the Christianity and manliness thread?

---

And just what is it about God, the Ultimate Being beyond our comprehension, that makes his (irrelevant) sexuality an either/or deal?

I'm sure that He can be anything He wants, and that He can deal with the imperfect ways we have of understanding and attempting to communicate with him.

ISTM that your god is a limited creature in a box, kept as your pet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Solidarity means that A shares something with B. Substitution means that A does it and B doesn't. If the lorry drivers strike along with the shipworkers that's solidarity; if the lorry drivers strike and the shipworkers keep on working that's substitution.

---

I'm pretty sure that the RCC believes that Jesus died for our sins and yet we keep on sinning. And not that Jesus sins along with us. Sounds more like substitution than solidarity in your analogy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Of course it wouldn't. I've addressed this on the Christian manliness thread, but God is masculine and feminine - so of course He can be girly. It's the way you presented girly as something bad which is sexist, or came across as sexist.

---

Well, I think it would be bad if the "masculinity" of God is denied, occluded or removed. What IS sexist is the relentless drive for divine femininity or at best androgyny, as if masculinity is a bad thing or something which needs to be controlled, augmented and amended.

---

Could you please bring this over to the Christianity and manliness thread?

---

And just what is it about God, the Ultimate Being beyond our comprehension, that makes his (irrelevant) sexuality an either/or deal?

I'm sure that He can be anything He wants, and that He can deal with the imperfect ways we have of understanding and attempting to communicate with him.

ISTM that your god is a limited creature in a box, kept as your pet.

---

Sorry, is this aimed at me or daronmedway? I don't think God's gender identity is an either/or deal at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
The hymn in question is included in the new Methodist hymn book.

When challenged by many about its inclusion given the assertion of its compilers that every hymn was subject to the most rigorous theological scrutiny the compilers added another criterion and said ed "but many Methodists like singing it".

So which is it to be?

This is one Methodist who will not sing the hymn unless and until Stuart Townend allows some changes.

---

quote:

---

not that each specific text must represent the corporate doctrinal and liturgical mind of the Conference, but that each text contributes appropriately to the whole collection

---

according to the FAQs on singingthefaithplus.org.uk
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Whatever our views on PSA - and I've modified mine over the years from a full-on PSA position to a more moderate one, but it's still work in progress - I have more than a little sympathy with daronmedway's concerns about one tradition changing the lyrics of a song that has arisen in another.

Not only is this disrespectful to the tradition from which the song emerged (not that this would bother me unduly, but fair's fair, why should evos get more stick than anyone else?) but it also makes for less authenticity and integrity.

Frankly, the revisions don't sound right at all. They sound overly conscious and arch.

I've long believed that hymns and songs of whatever stripe make most sense in the context in which they were written. An obvious point, perhaps, but I find that songs 'jar' when divorced from their original theological or ecclesial context.

I well remember the kind of 'Kingdom' themed worship songs and choruses that came out of the Dales and Downs Bible Weeks in the early 80s. They would quickly catch on and be sung in Anglican charismatic circles, for instance, which didn't accept the underlying ecclesiology and premise that these songs expressed. People simply sang them because they were catchy and had singable tunes ... well, worship choruses were generally singable in those days, they are less so now.

Conversely, 'I the Lord of sea and sky' and 'Brother, sister, let me serve you' and those rather worthy but dull liberal hymns that tick people off for being nasty 'with a zeal he will not own' and so on - would sound very out of place in a conservative or charismatic evangelical setting.

Interestingly, I've seen the PCUSA decision to kick 'In Christ Alone' into touch discussed on an Orthodox/RC/Anglican forum. The Orthodox there generally agreed with the sentiments - they don't buy PSA of course but see it as another nefarious Western innovation - but felt that PCUSA were doing it for the wrong reasons - ie. not from theological or doctrinal conviction so much as a trendy attempt to be politically-correct ...



On the PSA thing, I sometimes think our Orthodox friends go too far in the opposite direction but I think it's undeniable that how Anselm would have understood the atonement was rather different to how contemporary evangelicals tend to see it.

I submit that Kaplan Corday is reading it back 'into' the pages of the NT because of the particular lenses he has in his glasses. We all do that of course - we are all wearing bi-focals or varifocals and so on.

The only difference is that most of us accept this but Kaplan and others like him like to fondly imagine that they are dealing with the pure and straight meaning of the texts whereas everyone else somehow went off the boil and went off track no sooner had the ink dried on the parchments and scrolls.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
By the same token, I'd like to ask how people can ever hope for justice to be truly done if no-one gets punished for their wickedness? The only robust way I've found to release genuine forgiveness is to acknowledge that their sin can be paid for in only one of two places: 1) In Christ on the cross, or 2) in hell.

---

That's not justice. In Britain, if you murder a person, you're likely to be in prison (not in hell) for, say, 30 years. Less if there's mitigation.

Even in the old days, the penalty for murder was to be killed. Once.

With your God, the penalty for failing to kiss his arse is fire over every inch of your body for ever and ever and ever, with no hope whatsoever of any release or diminution of the punishment.

Call that justice? Cos I don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
whether or not my argument is flawed it doesn't use a dichotomy whether false or sound.

---

quote:

---

PSA is nowhere expressed in the New Testament.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Neither do I.

---

quote:

---

Well, I think it would be bad if the "masculinity" of God is denied, occluded or removed. What IS sexist is the relentless drive for divine femininity or at best androgyny, as if masculinity is a bad thing or something which needs to be controlled, augmented and amended.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There is an argument that PSA weakens the doctrine of the Trinity - which ought to give us some pause, I think. Otherwise we get into dubious ideas about the Trinity somehow being 'dismantled' on the cross.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
whether or not my argument is flawed it doesn't use a dichotomy whether false or sound.

---

It is a false dichotomy because it arbitrarily asserts that what the Bible teaches about God’s actions must be judged by human criteria of logic, but not what it teaches about God’s attributes.

---

quote:

---

In fact both, from a Christian point of view, are determined by revelation and an acknowledgment of the limitations of human reason.

quote:

---

Whether it is expressed as substance/persons, ousia/hypostases or substantia/personae, the idea of a unitary being consisting in three persons does not make sense

---

You say you don't want to use human standards of logic. Well, I suppose congratulations are in order since you clearly aren't doing so.

Should you ever deign to learn a bit about the human standards of logic that you are trying not to use, you'll find that the statement is formally compatible with human standards of logic. What does not make sense about it is the statement that God is not a material being. And that is a matter of human lack of experience of material beings, rather than a fault in logic. The statement that one unitary being cannot be three persons only holds of material beings; it is not a logical property.

quote:

---

[QUOTE][qb]PSA is nowhere expressed in the New Testament.

---

As you admit, Is.53:6, which clearly teaches PSA, is quoted in I Peter 2, and its soteriological significance (foreshadowed in Acts 8) is by no means negated by its context in the pericope vv. 18-25.

---

quote:

---

PSA is not the only NT model of salvation, but its explicit support in I Peter 2 is supported by, and fully compatible with, verses such as Romans 4:25, and I Cor.5:21; the use of the OT sacrificial system in Hebrews; and even the cry of dereliction from the cross, which divorced from PSA is very difficult to explain.

---

Any Christus Victor model can explain it. (Jesus enters Hell or the state of alienation from God or death so as to bring us out with him, for example.) Indeed any model of atonement that requires the resurrection as an integral part of its model can explain the cry of dereliction as being an expression of that state from which God raises Jesus.

[ 07. August 2013, 15:23: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Daronmedway -

Oh, really? So arguments against PSA are 'invariably rooted in a sub-trinitarian understanding of the Godhead'?

So in that case, the Orthodox Church has a sub-trinitarian understanding of the Godhead then ...

Which would be rather strange considering that it was the Orthodox Church (comprising what developed into the RC and Orthodox Churches as we now have them - the terms Catholic and Orthodox being synonymous at that time), which came up with the classic creedal formularies on the issue.



I think you need to get out more.

I'm not saying I agree with them, but I've heard a number of Orthodox make a case against PSA on the basis that it requires a faulty understanding of the relationship between the Persons of the Godhead.

Perhaps it's one of these things that can be argued both ways round.

I'm not carrying a candle for the Orthodox Church necessarily (honest, guv'nor) - but in my experience among the more conservative Chrisitian traditons (I'm leaving liberalism out of it for now) it tends to be popular forms of evangelicalism that promote a rather weak view of the Trinity.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Whatever the case, I think that in all Christian traditions there are people who 'rise above' the particular paradigm or theology.

Sticking my neck out, I'd say that most Calvinists do for a start ...

One might expect that TULIP would lead them to become a bunch of heartless bastards who neither give a flying fart for man nor beast ... given the rather Molech view of the Almighty that a logical extension into hyper-Calvinism might imply.

Observation shows, however, that this is far from the case. Daronmedway's missus is presumably a Calvinist and yet there is running a charity and presumably doing a lot of good for her fellow human beings. Good on her.

The issue then becomes, of course, whether this is because of or inspite of her theology. The same could be said for any other theological position too, of course - RC, Orthodox, Arminian/Wesleyan, Amyraldian or whatever else.

I noticed Will Self in The Guardian on Saturday saying that he considered Rowan Williams to be a deeply spiritual and wise man, despite, rather than because, of his religious beliefs.


 

---

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
and those rather worthy but dull liberal hymns that tick people off for being nasty 'with a zeal he will not own'

---

Fr Faber was many things but a "dull liberal" he wasn't.

Thurible
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Maybe not, but liberal hymns are generally pretty dull.

At least you get some 'drama' in the more conservative models ...



On the issue of PSA and the Trinity, well, the argument from the Orthodox side, unless I'm mistaken, runs something like this:

If divine wrath involves loss of communion and Christ is the proper subject of that wrath, then it must follow that Christ lost communion with the Father.

In which case, this implies separability at the hypostatic level.

Consequently, this must either imply Arianism - Christ is not 'one in essence' - homoousious - with the Father, or else there is another person who is Christ apart from the Logos - in which case Nestorianism is correct.

If, I've got that right, then I'm interested to hear how this represents a sub-Trinitarian position.

I'll be offline for a week after this evening so I look forward to the various thought-provoking responses to this when I come back.

Peace Shipmates and yo-ho-ho me hearties!


 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
A dichotomy is a division of a logical category into two exclusive subcategories.

---

quote:

---

And if we are not to use human standards of logic to understand revelation, why then should we use human standards of grammar and syntax?

---

quote:

---

1 Peter 2 is clearly not intending to teach PSA.

---

quote:

---

Any Christus Victor model can explain it.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Kaplan Corday

Aulen's emphasis is on the unity of the Father and Son in the enterprise, and if there is in fact some sort separation because of Christ's identification with humanity, then in the absence of a sin-bearing which produces a temporary relational (not ontological) breach in the relationship, it is difficult to think of anything compelling to explain it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

originally posted by Kaplan Corday

Aulen's emphasis is on the unity of the Father and Son in the enterprise, and if there is in fact some sort separation because of Christ's identification with humanity, then in the absence of a sin-bearing which produces a temporary relational (not ontological) breach in the relationship, it is difficult to think of anything compelling to explain it.

---

(Emphasis mine)

That's a mighty big if, Kaplan (and probably takes us on to another
Townend song, to boot).
It depends on the assumption that when Christ quoted Psalm 22 from the cross, he was actually forsaken (not separated, note - that's an evangelical gloss present in neither the OT or NT texts) by God, or whether that was His subjective experience. Bearing in mind the broader scriptural teaching that nothing can separate us from God's love, or even His Presence, no matter how alienated we may feel, I know which explanation I would choose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
A dichotomy is a division of a logical category into two exclusive subcategories.

---

On your own definition you are using a false dichotomy.

The category is revelation, and you separate it into two arbitrary sub-categories of things revealed about the nature of God which are illogical by human standards but must be accepted because revealed, and things revealed about God's activities/powers which are illogical by human standards and therefore to be rejected.

---

quote:

---

In fact, the idea of a unitary, integral, personal intelligent being divided into three persons is just as rationally unacceptable as the idea of that same being possessing the ability to transfer guilt.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

And if we are not to use human standards of logic to understand revelation, why then should we use human standards of grammar and syntax?

---

Normally we do, but some things transcend human logic.

Ask any rationalist (or for that matter any Muslim) whether it is common sense to believe in a triune Godhead, one member of which can become an all too material human being, and die.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Any Christus Victor model can explain it.

---

Aulen's emphasis is on the unity of the Father and Son in the enterprise, and if there is in fact some sort separation because of Christ's identification with humanity, then in the absence of a sin-bearing which produces a temporary relational (not ontological) breach in the relationship, it is difficult to think of anything compelling to explain it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
You are supposing me to make a distinction between two things where there is no real distinction to be made.

---

quote:

---

Indeed, none of the words 'unitary' 'integral' 'personal' or 'intelligent' apply to a non-material non-finite being in any sense that we can rationally grasp.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
My mother, who had a partially theological education, taught me that the choice of that Psalm was deliberate, and the whole of it matters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
My mother, who had a partially theological education, taught me that the choice of that Psalm was deliberate, and the whole of it matters.

---

Totally agree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
You are supposing me to make a distinction between two things where there is no real distinction to be made.

---

You are splitting revelation into two compartments: statements about God, to which the rules of logic do not apply, and statements about other things to which they do.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Indeed, none of the words 'unitary' 'integral' 'personal' or 'intelligent' apply to a non-material non-finite being in any sense that we can rationally grasp.

---

They are the attributes of any monotheistic conception of God, and logically incompatible with a God consisting of three persons.

---

quote:

---

It is true that common sense is not synonymous with logic, but it is not inappropriate to overlap them in this context.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you're right that the Godhead transcends explanation, whether logical or otherwise, then the fact that an explanation is compelling means that it must be wrong.

---

To say that the Godhead ultimately transcends human logic is not identical with some sort of Ockhamist scepticism as to the possibility of anything at all meaningful and coherent being known or said of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I'm another who doesn't like 'In Christ Alone' because of that line about wrath. Replacing 'wrath' with 'love' is a neat trick, I reckon! Is it Goperryrevs who has that line as his sig? With 'love' spelt 'wuv' so it sounds even more like 'wrath'!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I have for some time been convinced that Christ experienced abandonment, for two reasons:

1. It seems a funny psalm to pick otherwise;
2. The absence of God is part of human experience which, if he experiences it, Christ redeems through his passion, resurrection and ascension.

As for the metaphysical reality of the relationship between the Father and the Son during this point, I defer to my brother in law's all purpose theological answer - "who knows, eh?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I've felt uncomfortable for a while singing 'wrath', so substitute it for 'love'.

---

quote:

---

Eliab: What change in God's love for us (for Jesus? for Himself?) is the death of Christ supposed to have wrought?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
What does "the love of God was satisfied" mean in that context?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
What does "the love of God was satisfied" mean in that context? What change in God's love for us (for Jesus? for Himself?) is the death of Christ supposed to have wrought?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
What does "the love of God was satisfied" mean in that context?

---

I prefer the (unquestionably scriptural) 'the love of God was magnified'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I've felt uncomfortable for a while singing 'wrath', so substitute it for 'love'.

---

What does "the love of God was satisfied" mean in that context? What change in God's love for us (for Jesus? for Himself?) is the death of Christ supposed to have wrought?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
And still I have no problem with it. If you must, see Townend's phrasing as a reference to God's wrath against sin, which he will one day blast out of the universe forever, rather than a specific reference to PSA. God is angry at the sin that warps his creation, what's the big deal with referencing this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
What does "the love of God was satisfied" mean in that context?

---

I prefer the (unquestionably scriptural) 'the love of God was magnified'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the PSA thing, I sometimes think our Orthodox friends go too far in the opposite direction but I think it's undeniable that how Anselm would have understood the atonement was rather different to how contemporary evangelicals tend to see it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Tricky, though, when you're in the choir and have a job to do. Even more tricky when you have been asked to sing it for a friend's wedding!

---

That's an unusual choice for a wedding.

If I were going to be very cheeky, I'd say I thought that Anglican choirs were used to singing things that they didn't believe, so what's the big deal?
 

---

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd PSA is nowhere expressed in the New Testament.

---

As you admit, Is.53:6, which clearly teaches PSA, is quoted in I Peter 2, and its soteriological significance (foreshadowed in Acts 8) is by no means negated by its context in the pericope vv. 18-25.

PSA is not the only NT model of salvation, but its explicit support in I Peter 2 is supported by, and fully compatible with, verses such as Romans 4:25, and I Cor.5:21; the use of the OT sacrificial system in Hebrews; and even the cry of dereliction from the cross, which divorced from PSA is very difficult to explain.

---

As we've resurrected the good ol' PSA argument, I might as well chip in with (IMO) the best evidence text for PSA as being Galatians 3:13-14 from which one would rather derive the term 'curse substitutionary redemption' instead of 'penal substitutionary atonement'. (Maybe we could debate the difference between those two formulations. )

The 'curse' refers back to the curses (aka punishments) which would be imposed on those who broke the law as explained in Deuteronomy 27 and 28.

(Which reminds me, I owe Mousethief an explanation of these verses from another thread that is so old it's been oblivionated in the latest tidy-up. I just need 30 hours in each day...)
Angus

[Edit for typo]

[ 14. August 2013, 23:16: Message edited by: A.Pilgrim ]
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Very cheeky, Svitlana. If we really didn't believe most of it, we'd go and sing in a secular choir instead: much less demanding!
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Neither do I.

---

In that case, why do you phrase it as an either/or deal?

quote:

---

Well, I think it would be bad if the "masculinity" of God is denied, occluded or removed. What IS sexist is the relentless drive for divine femininity or at best androgyny, as if masculinity is a bad thing or something which needs to be controlled, augmented and amended.

---

You state there that the masculinity of God is denied or removed if one allows for the femininity of God to be discussed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Tricky, though, when you're in the choir and have a job to do. Even more tricky when you have been asked to sing it for a friend's wedding!

---

That's an unusual choice for a wedding.

If I were going to be very cheeky, I'd say I thought that Anglican choirs were used to singing things that they didn't believe, so what's the big deal?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Neither do I.

---

In that case, why do you phrase it as an either/or deal?

quote:

---

Well, I think it would be bad if the "masculinity" of God is denied, occluded or removed. What IS sexist is the relentless drive for divine femininity or at best androgyny, as if masculinity is a bad thing or something which needs to be controlled, augmented and amended.

---

You state there that the masculinity of God is denied or removed if one allows for the femininity of God to be discussed.

---

No I didn't. I said that the denial, occlusion or removal of the "masculinity" of God from theological discourse will result in an inaccurate picture of God.

---

Very few people who highlight the femininity of God deny, occlude or remove the masculinity of God. It's just that because we live and have always lived in a patriarchal society, the femininity of God has been ignored and unsurprisingly, many people want to correct that error.
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
And yet liturgical alternatives for "Father" continue to gain in popularity.

[ 15. August 2013, 18:09: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
 

---

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
I love 'In Christ Alone' but it is patently not a wedding hymn, IMO. Odd lot, those conservative evangelicals. .
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chorister:
[qb] Tricky, though, when you're in the choir and have a job to do. Even more tricky when you have been asked to sing it for a friend's wedding!

---

...it's used as a witnessing tool, I suspect...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Very cheeky, Svitlana. If we really didn't believe most of it, we'd go and sing in a secular choir instead: much less demanding!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've heard more than one person say that they weren't religious, and they'd only joined a CofE choir because they liked singing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
And yet liturgical alternatives for "Father" continue to gain in popularity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Eliab:
What does "the love of God was satisfied" mean in that context?

---

I prefer the (unquestionably scriptural) 'the love of God was magnified'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
And yet liturgical alternatives for "Father" continue to gain in popularity.

---

Not in my experience, but then again I'm not in more liturgically creative churches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
I love 'In Christ Alone' but it is patently not a wedding hymn, IMO. .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
'They whipped and they stripped' is an odd choice for a wedding hymn too.

---

Sounds like an interesting marriage to me
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Article from Angela Tilbury challenging attempts to change the words of In Christ Alone:

She says:

quote:

---

... this deeply disturbing, even cruel, conception of what happened on the cross works because it is a metaphor. Taking it literally as a forensic analysis of salvation is simply a mistake. It should be seen alongside, for example, John Donne's "Batter my heart, Three Person'd God".

As paradox, penal substitution has great force. To imagine Christ standing in for me at the place where I am most guilty and in need brings about the kind of insight that can change a life. We should not try to conform genuine poets such as Townend and Getty to our theological mediocrity.

---

 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
theological mediocrity - two words, such profundity
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Interesting to find Angela Tilby defending Messrs Townend and Getty.

This isn't to damn with faint praise, but I do think that their work, both lyrically and musically, is much better than Hillsongs and other contemporary folk-rock/singer-songwriter worship songs. Whether I'd be as gracious as Angela Tilby and dignify them with the term 'poets' though is another matter ...



It is nice of Angela to be so even-handed, though, she's such a sweetie ...

Theological mediocrity cuts both ways though. I suspect that the PCUSA is guilty of that and of mealy-mouthed political-correctness ...

That said, it's not as if there's any shortage of theological mediocrity in the PSA camp either ... at least in its more populist and sound-bitey forms.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Article from Angela Tilbury challenging attempts to change the words of In Christ Alone:

She says:

quote:

---

... this deeply disturbing, even cruel, conception of what happened on the cross works because it is a metaphor. Taking it literally as a forensic analysis of salvation is simply a mistake. It should be seen alongside, for example, John Donne's "Batter my heart, Three Person'd God".

As paradox, penal substitution has great force. To imagine Christ standing in for me at the place where I am most guilty and in need brings about the kind of insight that can change a life. We should not try to conform genuine poets such as Townend and Getty to our theological mediocrity.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I s'pose, Ken, it all goes back to whether we understand these things in terms of 'expiation' or 'propitiation'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Eliab:
What does "the love of God was satisfied" mean in that context?

---

I prefer the (unquestionably scriptural) 'the love of God was magnified'.

---

That's what I sing when we ever have to sing it. It looks better than stubbornly standing there with your mouth zipped, refusing to sing at all (which I've seen some people do). [/QUOTE

Can I quote that as my justification for singing: "Christian children all should be/ Disobedient as he"...?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
In the carol service at Kings College on the Strand, they used to merge the two childhood verses, omitting the obedience part. Now they omit the childhood completely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Its good news for us if that wrath is "satisfied" (whatever that means exactly) Its not roaming around looking for someone to smite. it has achieved its purpose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Heh heh ... well, I've always understood them to be close but not synonymous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Heh heh ... well, I've always understood them to be close but not synonymous.

---

Expiation is about something (i.e. sin) being removed from people. The primary subject is humanity. Propitiation is about something being removed from God (i.e. God's indignation at and settled animosity towards sinners). The primary subject is God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There's a difficult balancing act here, because if you take PSA too far and over emphasise the wrath aspects you end up with a rather petulant and hissy-fit deity or else, even worse, one which is some kind of Molech.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Has it occurred that the rejection of ICA may have something to do with its awful tune and, frankly, off-putting lyrics?

---

I can see why some would find the lyrics off putting. I find it harder to imagine that anyone would genuinely consider the tune to be awful. Do you really think it's an awful tune?
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
daronmedway : Yes, the tune is ghastly.

Why? Well, as sung by many congregations it descends into a formless, meandering drone. Sung by a soloist - especially female - it feels like we're stuck in a time-warp listening to a 'new' song from Mary O'Hara.

Above all, it makes me think of (UK folk group) The Spinners
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:
This word [Orgé (ὀργή) pronounced or-gay] is sometimes used positively and sometimes negatively, depending on context. It is the sort of anger that rises from a conviction about something. Even though orgé is used for God's anger, but it has to be born in mind that even then God is slow to anger. Imagine someone being upset by the plight of children living on the streets, and her anger motivates her to open her home to them. That is orgé. It is also the way that God is angry.

If you read this meaning of wrath back into "the wrath of God was satisfied" it doesn't seeem so bad.

God was so motivated by his anger at the way people were that he did something out of love and pity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:
if you throw out PSA and replace it with another theory, sat Christus Victor, you will still have a theory that doesn't explain it all, good s that alternate theory might be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:
if you throw out PSA and replace it with another theory, such as Christus Victor, you will still have a theory that doesn't explain it all, good as that alternate theory might be.

Garasu: You're no worse off, then...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Interesting - but of course that doesn't take the resurrection aspect into account. Yes, we are united in some way with Christ in his death - in that he shared our mortality - 'that he might taste death for everyone' - but also in his glorious resurrection - 'that we may share his risen life.'

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure I feel comfortable about the idea that God requires a 'sinless death' of us. I'm not sure God actually requires anything ... he doesn't NEED anything, he doesn't need us at all. But he chose to create us and have fellowship with us.

---

quote:

---

I still think this language of 'requirements' and so on sounds very juridical and feudal.

As far as I understand it, the Eastern take on these things is that it's more about our union with Christ rather than the forensic and juridical aspects - and yes, that includes being united with him in his death - but through that, in his resurrection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not sure God actually requires anything ... he doesn't NEED anything, he doesn't need us at all. But he chose to create us and have fellowship with us.

---

Oddly, as I read that, I had a strong impression of someone, young, cheerful and friendly, (and male) jumping about in a garden saying something like (paraphrase - no words) "Yes, someone's got it!"

Not that I can authenticate this as anything originating outside me.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I like that, Penny S ...

I'm also intrigued by daronmedway's further elaboration. I can see what he's getting at but it's still the 'need' bit that sticks a bit ... although I appreciate he's not saying that there is any kind of 'lack' in the Godhead.

I'm off out and about soon so don't have time to apply my thinking cap to it just now ...
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 

quote:

---

originally posted by daronmedway

However, if we can understand Christ's death as a vicarious provision of something (i.e. sinless death) we need, rather than as a penalty which our sin has incurred, it allows us to retain the judicial and substitutionary nature of the crucifixion without necessarily requiring a penalty being being paid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...although I know Orthodox people who would claim that PSA does damage to a proper Trinitarian understanding.

I s'pose my own 'take' would be that it doesn't necessarily follow that it should - but in practice it often does ... because, controversial though this might be, I'm increasingly convinced that popular evangelical at least is weaker on the Trinity than it ought to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I sometimes wonder if it would be possible to reconceive the penal aspect of PSA as something like MSA - mortal substitutionary atonement.

Christ by, means of his incarnation, provides a sinless death to which it is possible - and indeed necessary - to be mystically united. We die with Christ because we recognise that our own death would be just but soteriologically ineffectual due to our sin. Christ's death is therfore not substitutionary in the sense that we avoid a similar fate, it is substitutionary in the sense that it provides - by means of mystical union - the sinless death that God requires of us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MSHB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I sometimes wonder if it would be possible to reconceive the penal aspect of PSA as something like MSA - mortal substitutionary atonement.

Christ by, means of his incarnation, provides a sinless death to which it is possible - and indeed necessary - to be mystically united. We die with Christ because we recognise that our own death would be just but soteriologically ineffectual due to our sin. Christ's death is therfore not substitutionary in the sense that we avoid a similar fate, it is substitutionary in the sense that it provides - by means of mystical union - the sinless death that God requires of us.

---

But the NT contemplates a final generation that will not die at all (indeed they thought such a generation was present in their times). In other words, is death - even a sinless death - strictly necessary? If some, even just a few, don't need it then how *essentially* important is it? The NT saints, expecting to be alive when Christ returned in glory, certainly did not contemplate such an atonement, it seems to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MSHB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I sometimes wonder if it would be possible to reconceive the penal aspect of PSA as something like MSA - mortal substitutionary atonement.

Christ by, means of his incarnation, provides a sinless death to which it is possible - and indeed necessary - to be mystically united. We die with Christ because we recognise that our own death would be just but soteriologically ineffectual due to our sin. Christ's death is therfore not substitutionary in the sense that we avoid a similar fate, it is substitutionary in the sense that it provides - by means of mystical union - the sinless death that God requires of us.

---

But the NT contemplates a final generation that will not die at all (indeed they thought such a generation was present in their times). In other words, is death - even a sinless death - strictly necessary? If some, even just a few, don't need it then how *essentially* important is it? The NT saints, expecting to be alive when Christ returned in glory, certainly did not contemplate such an atonement, it seems to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

originally posted by daronmedway

However, if we can understand Christ's death as a vicarious provision of something (i.e. sinless death) we need, rather than as a penalty which our sin has incurred, it allows us to retain the judicial and substitutionary nature of the crucifixion without necessarily requiring a penalty being being paid.

---

I seem to recall that we reached this point in the epic Christus Victor thread some way back. Then, as now, I was and am quite sympathetic to this nuanced understanding, but I think that once you have taken the "punishment" element out of PSA, it is no longer "P", though it's undoubtedly "SA". Now, I'd be delighted to ditch it, but I think that would be perhaps going further than you would wish?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
God not requiring the ridiculously impossible of us and accepting us as we are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:
... To elevate PSA to being to only way of describing the work of Christ, and to demand that people believe in it as the only true theory is wrong on both counts, especially if the understanding of PSA they teach is flawed. PSA is based on scripture, but to elevate it above other theories is like taking three chapters of the book of Romans and elevating them above he rest of the Bible. PSA alone is just wrong.
...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
3) God not requiring the ridiculously impossible of us and accepting us as we are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Why is your God so unreasonable and standoffish, Angus? I don't act in that uncompromising way towards people I claim I love; if I did, it would mean I was a bare-faced liar. Why does God?

---

I'm genuinely sorry Karl, I cannot explain why God is the way that He is, just represent as accurately as I can what I believe has been revealed about Him.

I guess that I base my thinking on two foundational principles: firstly, God is the sovereign creator of the world and can do whatever he likes with it and no-one who has ever lived has any right to question that; secondly, God defines what love is, and although we have a perception of what is loving that comes from our being created in His image, it is not reliable, and if our perception of God is that He is unloving, it is our perception that is at fault, not God. So I don't take my own feelings about what 'being loving' is and expect God to conform to them. I do the opposite – try to conform myself to His definition. (With the usual caveat about failing terribly in my efforts. )

There are many unanswerable ‘why’ questions about the ministry of Jesus. Why did God require a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins – in the Aaronic sacrificial system, and in the once-and-for-all self-sacrifice of Jesus of which the Aaronic system was a prefigurement? Why did God create a world with the potential to go wrong that meant that sin entered it for which forgiveness had to be provided? I really really don’t know why. I don’t think we’ve been told.

As for God being stand-offish, I guess that’s down to His characteristic of holiness. No unsanctified human being can enter His presence and live. That’s the way God is, and I can’t explain why, either. But the utterly amazing miracle is that God himself has provided the way in which anyone who wishes to can (eventually!) become holy enough to enter and live for all eternity in His presence, with the one condition that they avail themselves of the process (for want of a better word) that God has provided, and not think that they can make up their own way instead. That seems pretty loving to me.

Angus
P.S. Got to go and do RL for a while now. Back sometime.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Hmmm. Conforming myself to God's idea of "loving", if you're correct, means I should reject my children until they're perfect, even though they can't be, unless they jump through some particular obscure hoops, despite my providing no actual evidence that those hoops are real.

No, don't get it. Sorry. My definition of "loving" seems better than God's. Unless, of course, we're misunderstanding God, and he's a lot more loving and accepting than we've been willing to give him credit for.
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

But the utterly amazing miracle is that God himself has provided the way in which anyone who wishes to can (eventually!) become holy enough to enter and live for all eternity in His presence

---

quote:

---

A.Pilgrim: God is the sovereign creator of the world and can do whatever he likes with it and no-one who has ever lived has any right to question that

---

quote:

---

A.Pilgrim:[qb] God is the sovereign creator of the world and can do whatever he likes with it and no-one who has ever lived has any right to question that

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

But the utterly amazing miracle is that God himself has provided the way in which anyone who wishes to can (eventually!) become holy enough to enter and live for all eternity in His presence

---

Hang on, aren't we able to come into God's presence when we pray, worship Him etc? We don't have to wait until we die for that. And when we come into God's presence it's not because we've been made holy, it's because God chooses to see us as holy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

But the utterly amazing miracle is that God himself has provided the way in which anyone who wishes to can (eventually!) become holy enough to enter and live for all eternity in His presence

---

Hang on, aren't we able to come into God's presence when we pray, worship Him etc? We don't have to wait until we die for that. And when we come into God's presence it's not because we've been made holy, it's because God chooses to see us as holy.

---

The author of Hebrews is of the view that Christ's blood (meaning his death through pouring out his life) is the way into God's presence. It's not a right that we have naturally. The reason we can consciously enjoy God's manifest presence or, to put it another way, the reason we can enter into the presence of God is that Christ has opened a new and living way for us by virtue of the blood of his atoning sacrifice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
The tune is pretty deadly, though. Apart from the middle section, which shows hope. The beginning and end of each verse makes me lose the will to live.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
The tune is pretty deadly, though. Apart from the middle section, which shows hope. The beginning and end of each verse makes me lose the will to live.

---

The verses end on a triumphant last phrase. It gives us blokes a chance to bellow out in church.

Much better than all those namby-pamby Graham Kendrick tunes which end on minor ninth chords with the melody jumping an octave and a half to a level most uncastrated males haven't been able to reach since the age of twelve.

(Or that's what they sound like anyway)
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I thought you were a fellow chorister, leo? I'm musical enough to know that I'm not musical enough. But my gut feeling tells me it's a boring tune. Mostly.
 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Not just blokes, ken, it's the sort of tune I enjoy belting out. Which is why the silent line gets a bit obvious.
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
The tune is pretty deadly, though. Apart from the middle section, which shows hope. The beginning and end of each verse makes me lose the will to live.

---

The verses end on a triumphant last phrase. It gives us blokes a chance to bellow out in church.

Much better than all those namby-pamby Graham Kendrick tunes which end on minor ninth chords with the melody jumping an octave and a half to a level most uncastrated males haven't been able to reach since the age of twelve.

(Or that's what they sound like anyway)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
I thought you were a fellow chorister, leo? .

---

Not good enough to audition for our choir.

Though I can sight read enough for some of the weirder responses they give me to sing when i am officiating.

When I have sung in a choir, I'm the sort of follows the other basses a split second behind them!
 

---

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
The good ol' Anglican echo, congregation half a second behind the organ.
 

---

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:
Probably the rejection of the hymn has something to do with its title and main idea "In Christ ALONE". This would not make the Church look nice in the wider secular and pluralistic society. It would not look nice to jews, muslims and atheists if the Church held a teaching that salvation only comes trough someone which they do not aknowledge as saviour or Lord. It is much nicier if the church teaches that salvation comes from being a nice person and Christ, at best, can only be a good example of that, like Gandhi or Mother Theresa. And that is exactly what mainline denominations want: to be in harmony with secular society. This will undoubtly lead to an exclusion of any concept of "God" that is not merely metaphorical, as the proportion of non-theists in the wider society tends to get bigger. It´s only natural that liturgical practices will slowly adapt to this new from of belief. Removing old hyms or changing their lyrics to make them mean the exact opposite that it meant is one step. It´s like the church is offically recognizing it no longer holds the same faith that christians of the past had.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
The tune is pretty deadly, though. Apart from the middle section, which shows hope. The beginning and end of each verse makes me lose the will to live.

---

The verses end on a triumphant last phrase. It gives us blokes a chance to bellow out in church.

Much better than all those namby-pamby Graham Kendrick tunes which end on minor ninth chords with the melody jumping an octave and a half to a level most uncastrated males haven't been able to reach since the age of twelve.

(Or that's what they sound like anyway)

---

If it's difficult for the blokes to reach (and it is), pity the poor ladies, singing an octave above that! I don't find "Grandad" is the biggest culprit, though. Tim Hughes (Happy Day), Matt Redman (Here for You) and the rest of the Passion crowd are far worse. One of ST's greatest strengths is that his tunes are so eminently singable, even by the average congregation.

---

• BUCKLEBURY
• CANTATE DOMINO (Barnby)
• DAN-Y-GRAIG
• GLANRHONDDA
• LONDON (ADDISON'S)
• TALLIS' LAMENTATION
• TREGARTH (Yes, I know this one has an enormous compass, but at least it's a good tune.)
• WER DA WONET

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:

In other words - quite apart from arguments about the theological purity of the words - the tune is not naturally comfortable for congregational singing and the tessitura makes transposition no solution.

All round In Christ alone is a good example of just what is wrong with some modern worship music...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Horses-for-courses, Mudfrog.

I'm Welsh - we all sing... but whether or not we should choose to waste our time on ICA is debatable.

---

In my 25 years as a minister I have gained some good experience of standing at the front and facing various congregations as they sing. You begin to discover which songs 'go down well' - which songs are the great ones for lifting the roof - and also which ones go like dirges and you wish you'd never chosen.

Som eof the Wesley ones, some of the magnificent ones, and i would include ICA in that number of hymns that you just know will get a good response. In fact, the response of the congregations I have been in to this modern classic hymn is so great we need to ration its use or else it will be done to death and will become commonplace and too familar.
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
As I say, Mudfrog, horses-for-courses.

A visiting bishop requested In Christ alone at my church a couple of years ago which we duly scheduled.

Apart from the choir, no one sang (not even the bishop or his chaplain) and at the end of the service I was met by a deputation from our normally enthusiastic congregation asking What was that ghastly ditty and further expressing the hope that it not be repeated. I referred them to the bishop.

As for ICA being a "modern classic" I think we need to wait a few more years before reaching that conclusion.
 

---

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
Ah well, nobody in my circles bats an eyelid at either the tune or THAT line. I like ICA and would consider it for my funeral (which, I hope, won't be happening for a long time yet).

Re: THAT line, I'm sure we could all think of traditional hymns which have weird theology or at least theology which isn't our cup of tea ... e.g. 'It came upon the midnight clear' makes no mention of Jesus whatsoever. And it's obviously got a postmillennialist bias. But it's one of my favourite carols.

I'm not one who bangs the drum particularly loudly for penal substitution theory. But the line 'the wrath of God was satisfied' refers to God's wrath at sin ... not sinners. Big difference, IMO.
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
Ah well, nobody in my circles bats an eyelid at either the tune or THAT line. I like ICA and would consider it for my funeral (which, I hope, won't be happening for a long time yet).

Re: THAT line, I'm sure we could all think of traditional hymns which have weird theology or at least theology which isn't our cup of tea ... e.g. 'It came upon the midnight clear' makes no mention of Jesus whatsoever. And it's obviously got a postmillennialist bias. But it's one of my favourite carols.

I'm not one who bangs the drum particularly loudly for penal substitution theory. But the line 'the wrath of God was satisfied' refers to God's wrath at sin ... not sinners. Big difference, IMO.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0