Ship of Fools: PSA

Thread: PSA Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027364

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

Dear God,
thank you for sending your Son, Jesus, to save us. We killed him.
Can we be friends now?

Am I missing something?

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Prostate Specific Antigen. That's what I think when I hear PSA. Yes, you should be concerned about it while considering your models of the Atonement.

[ 17. May 2014, 05:24: Message edited by: Amos ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Dear God,
thank you for sending your Son, Jesus, to save us. We killed him.
Can we be friends now?

Am I missing something?

You might want to work an apology into there somewhere.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Am I missing something?

You're missing a topic for discussion.

The OP sets up an obvious straw man, gives none of your own opinions, and proposes no serious subject for debate. OK, so it's about PSA, and therefore there's got to be a better than evens chance that other shipmates will do your work for you, and get an actual conversation started, but if that doesn't happen, you might want to expand the OP a little if you want this thread to go anywhere.

Eliab
Purgatory host

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :

Ah yes, but Jesus had to die so that he could take the punishment that should be ours and so that we could be washed in his blood and made clean.

<shudder> Or so it is presented to me every Monday, without fail, at my Home Group. Precedes every prayer (which might or might not be relevant to one's problems) equally without fail.

I do wonder why I go there. I mutter to myself, no its not like that, but don't feel strong enough to argue there.

I'm a wimp, really. [Help]

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

You might want to look up the mammoth "Christian Victor" thread, which, presumably, is in Limbo. I think there's some 80-odd pages which examine many of the issues in depth.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

Oops, Christus Victor. B*!$%y predictive text!

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Hairy Biker. No lad, you're missing nowt.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Dear God,
thank you for sending your Son, Jesus, to save us. We killed him.
Can we be friends now?

Am I missing something?

Yeh. Lots.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Yes, you're missing a balanced viewpoint and I infer a lack of understanding of the incarnation and the Trinity.

[ 17. May 2014, 11:29: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

Surely the OP presents the fundamental challenge for any model of the atonement, not just PSA?

In fact isn't the model that the OP most strongly mocks one that goes "God will simply forgive us unconditionally because of his loving, forgiving nature and one needn't go any deeper into why that might be?"

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Surely the OP presents the fundamental challenge for any model of the atonement, not just PSA?

In fact isn't the model that the OP most strongly mocks one that goes "God will simply forgive us unconditionally because of his loving, forgiving nature and one needn't go any deeper into why that might be?"

But that doesn't seem to be the objection raised in the OP. The OP seems rather to be directed at the means of redemption (Jesus' death) whereas your objection seems to be directed at the effect of redemption (unconditional grace).

With that qualification, I think the OP is correct in identifying only substitutionary (one could add satisfaction) theory as problematic. Those are the only two of the five major images for the atonement that understand the atonement in such a transactional way, where it is only the death of Jesus that accomplishes redemption. By way of contrast, in Christus victor the resurrection-- the "victory" thing-- is more prominent, and the means are understood in a less rigidly transactional way.

IMHO this is why we need all 5 images. When we try to understand the atonement thru only one we end up with errors, some quite serious. The balance of all 5 helps us see different aspects of the atonement that guard against over-literalization of the analogy.

Interestingly, I was able to attend a conference recently with NT Wright where he was asked a similar question. He advocated a systematic theology that included all 5 images, but suggested that Christus victor was the framework in which they all come together.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller
With that qualification, I think the OP is correct in identifying only substitutionary (one could add satisfaction) theory as problematic.

In the light of the comments on the "Intellectual and spiritual rape" thread concerning the nature of doctrine and the means by which we are supposed to believe and accept doctrinal claims, what does the word 'problematic' mean here? In what way could any doctrine be viewed as 'problematic', if we are not allowed to evaluate the truth of a claim by means of reason and evidence? If doctrines - i.e. spiritual concepts - really are subjective (even 'arbitrary' as one person stated) and are the result of "community bias" then how on earth can we judge that any doctrine is 'problematic'?? [Confused]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller
With that qualification, I think the OP is correct in identifying only substitutionary (one could add satisfaction) theory as problematic.
In the light of the comments on the "Intellectual and spiritual rape" thread concerning the nature of doctrine and the means by which we are supposed to believe and accept doctrinal claims, what does the word 'problematic' mean here? In what way could any doctrine be viewed as 'problematic', if we are not allowed to evaluate the truth of a claim by means of reason and evidence? If doctrines - i.e. spiritual concepts - really are subjective (even 'arbitrary' as one person stated) and are the result of "community bias" then how on earth can we judge that any doctrine is 'problematic'??

Well, you could judge it by the psychological effects it has on its adherents. What is their mental health like, before they believe it, and after they've been believing it for a while? What's the retention rate, and how do people who leave the community of said adherents speak of their experience therein?

There's a lot of ways to judge doctrines that have nothing whatever to do with verifiability.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

As with most things, I think I incline toward the NT Wright view on this one ...

One of the strengths of PSA is that it can be reduced to a kind of neat, short-hand soundbite - which is how it is used in evangelistic encounters very often. I used to do that myself in my more full-on evangelical days. If I could only leave someone with an inkling of the PSA model of the atonement then I thought I'd done a good job ...

But that's also its Achille's Heel. It can be reduced to a caricature.

In my experience, though, most of those who hold to a PSA model don't do so in isolation from the other atonement models - they may consider it the dominant model, a kind of 'first among equals' if you like, but they are careful to bring in the other available models too.

And as Mudfrog says, they do bring in the Trinity and Incarnation - without which the whole thing is dislocated and out of synch.

I suspect the reason that many non-evangelical Christians feel the whole thing is unbalanced within evangelicalism is because the evangelicals have had to defend this particular model as one of their distinctives. Consequently, it may have assumed a greater significance in their own minds and in their style of presentation than might actually be the case in the cold light of day.

Clearly, it doesn't fit the Orthodox schema as their emphasis is more on expiation rather than propitiation and sin as an illness to be cured rather than a condition that needs to be punished - although that doesn't mean that they don't believe in judgement and so on.

Across the board, though, other than among some very in-you-face style conservative or fundamentalist evangelicals, I do find that there is a more balanced and integrated view of the atonement among evangelicals than can sometimes appear from the outside.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
Well, you could judge it by the psychological effects it has on its adherents. What is their mental health like, before they believe it, and after they've been believing it for a while? What's the retention rate, and how do people who leave the community of said adherents speak of their experience therein?

So presumably if I say that a doctrine, such as PSA, has a positive psychological effect on me, then it's not a problematic doctrine? After all, I am the only one with the right to say whether it's had a positive or negative psychological effect on me.

The idea that it doesn't actually matter whether a doctrine is true or not, and it is only its subjective psychological effect that validates it, is truly bizarre. That reduces Christianity to a kind of placebo. God doesn't have to bother existing. In fact, it would be better if he didn't exist, because then we could just exercise our own human control over religious ideas and use them as a programme of positive thinking to get us through our ultimately meaningless little lives.

This is all just an intellectual capitulation to atheism, with religion operating as nothing more than a kind of psychological comfort food, of no more significance than any fantasy film or novel. The Church then becomes a theme park, of no more importance than Legoland or Disney World - a place of great entertainment and psychological uplift, but ultimately futile.

[ 17. May 2014, 22:05: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

[Confused]

I'm not sure that's what Mousethief was saying, EE. Besides, the last time I looked I didn't get the impression that Mousethief was an atheist.

But then, I'm not a Christian as far as you are concerned. Does the right to pontificate about other people's spiritual state come with the right to say whether or not you have been affected adversely or otherwise by a particular doctrine?

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

Gamaliel, you are stepping periously close to a red line in terms of personal attacks in general and interpersonal conflict with EE in particular. Step back. Now.

/hosting

[ 17. May 2014, 22:34: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

It is hard to deny that the NT (and its OT prophecies) teach that Jesus suffered in our place so that we don't have to. But PENAL substitution is, I believe, a small part of the picture which has been exaggerated in some circles and can seem arbitrary and unreal when used as the main image.

I prefer to think in terms of what I believe is Jesus' main image, the forgiveness of debt, whereby the forgiver 'foots the bill' and suffers in order to free the debtor from his obligation. Even then, you need all the biblical pictures added together.

Some aspects of the atonement, particularly the fact that 'we killed Him' are significantly about challenging us with the reality of the cost of forgiveness and the need of repentance.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

What astounds me is that He obviously believed it in His ignorant humanity which makes His human courage the vaster.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Prostate Specific Antigen. That's what I think when I hear PSA. Yes, you should be concerned about it while considering your models of the Atonement.

When I saw this thread, I thought surely somebody isn't starting another thread on PSA. And, yet, here we are. Interestingly, the threads are almost always started by somebody who rejects PSA. Oh well...

Perhaps, Eutychus will start a thread on French automobiles for a change of pace.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

When I saw PSA I immediately thought of public service announcement -- those commercial-like things that run late at night about staying off drugs or not smoking.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
Well, you could judge it by the psychological effects it has on its adherents. What is their mental health like, before they believe it, and after they've been believing it for a while? What's the retention rate, and how do people who leave the community of said adherents speak of their experience therein?
So presumably if I say that a doctrine, such as PSA, has a positive psychological effect on me, then it's not a problematic doctrine?

No. It's the existence of people who have been harmed, not the existence of people who have not been harmed, that flags something as harmful. This is Business 101 class stuff.

quote:
After all, I am the only one with the right to say whether it's had a positive or negative psychological effect on me.

But no right at all to say the effect it's had on others, and if it has no effect on you, you don't matter at all.

quote:
The idea that it doesn't actually matter whether a doctrine is true or not, and it is only its subjective psychological effect that validates it, is truly bizarre.

That is truly bizarre. Glad I didn't say that. I was answering your question, which wasn't about validating but about how to judge if something is problematic. Unless you make a stark and absurd claim that all that is not problematic is validated.

You asked a question, I answered it. You seem to think that my answer should be taken to apply to some question you DIDN'T ask. That's not fair, or reasonable.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Christus Victor in all it's 'glory'

A thread which aimed to explore Christus Victor but majored on PSA in a wide ranging and lengthy look at atonement.

[ 18. May 2014, 06:25: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
Well, you could judge it by the psychological effects it has on its adherents. What is their mental health like, before they believe it, and after they've been believing it for a while? What's the retention rate, and how do people who leave the community of said adherents speak of their experience therein?
So presumably if I say that a doctrine, such as PSA, has a positive psychological effect on me, then it's not a problematic doctrine? After all, I am the only one with the right to say whether it's had a positive or negative psychological effect on me.

The idea that it doesn't actually matter whether a doctrine is true or not, and it is only its subjective psychological effect that validates it, is truly bizarre. That reduces Christianity to a kind of placebo. God doesn't have to bother existing. In fact, it would be better if he didn't exist, because then we could just exercise our own human control over religious ideas and use them as a programme of positive thinking to get us through our ultimately meaningless little lives.

This is all just an intellectual capitulation to atheism, with religion operating as nothing more than a kind of psychological comfort food, of no more significance than any fantasy film or novel. The Church then becomes a theme park, of no more importance than Legoland or Disney World - a place of great entertainment and psychological uplift, but ultimately futile.

I think the point is more that a correct doctrine should contribute to producing the fruits of the spirit - if the fruits produced are bitterness, judgementalism, fear, guilt and hatred then it may be that something is wrong with the doctrine.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think the point is more that a correct doctrine should contribute to producing the fruits of the spirit - if the fruits produced are bitterness, judgementalism, fear, guilt and hatred then it may be that something is wrong with the doctrine.

Actually I hadn't even thought of that, or at least I didn't consciously make the connection. Good call.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/

Gamaliel, you are stepping periously close to a red line in terms of personal attacks in general and interpersonal conflict with EE in particular. Step back. Now.

/hosting

[ADMIN EMPHASIS ADDED]

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

My intention was to play the ball (the idea of Christianity reduced to mere psychology), not the man (mousethief). I don't believe that I aimed for the man, but if my tackle missed the ball and brought down the man, then I apologise.

(Of course, I may have missed both ball and man, but that's another matter altogether.)

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ok. I will step aside from this particular thread to avoid muddying the waters.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

It's like Satan, Beeswax Altar, how can one reject what Jesus accepted? No matter how liberal one knows God to be.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
It's the existence of people who have been harmed, not the existence of people who have not been harmed, that flags something as harmful.

I am sure there are quite a number of people who have lost their lives as a result of bread knives. Bread knives are dangerous. They can kill. Therefore bread knives are problematic.

You see my point, of course. Is something inherently 'problematic', or is it problematic because it is abused, misused, or, in the case of a concept, misunderstood?

If something is inherently problematic, then it will be so for everyone, or it will be so for those who are particularly vulnerable to it (such as a peanut allergy sufferer in relation to peanuts). In the latter case, the problem is not in the thing itself, but the condition that makes the sufferer vulnerable. We can't overcome peanut allergy by universally banning peanuts, but by finding a cure for the allergy.

By making an unqualified statement that PSA is 'problematic', one is saying that there is something inherently dangerous about the idea. And this therefore speaks to the question of the concept's veracity (given the context of the doctrine, namely, salvation flowing from the goodness of God).

quote:
Unless you make a stark and absurd claim that all that is not problematic is validated.

Which, of course, I did not say - or even imply!

Many wonderful ideas are beautiful, comforting ... and false. I have never suggested otherwise.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If something is inherently problematic, then it will be so for everyone, or it will be so for those who are particularly vulnerable to it (such as a peanut allergy sufferer in relation to peanuts). In the latter case, the problem is not in the thing itself, but the condition that makes the sufferer vulnerable. We can't overcome peanut allergy by universally banning peanuts, but by finding a cure for the allergy.

Some people who contract HIV don't die. They don't even get sick.

Therefore, according to your logic, HIV isn't really all that bad. If it were inherently a bad thing, it would kill EVERYBODY it infects.

Very very little is universally harmful. That's an unrealistic criterion.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
Some people who contract HIV don't die. They don't even get sick.

Therefore, according to your logic, HIV isn't really all that bad. If it were inherently a bad thing, it would kill EVERYBODY it infects.

Very very little is universally harmful. That's an unrealistic criterion.

That is not a fair comparison at all, because my examples are things which are harmful to some people, but beneficial to others.

Now let us imagine, for the sake of argument, that 50% of the human race was known to be resistant to HIV, and also that HIV was known to be a wonder cure for cancer. If that were the case, then we could hardly make the sweeping claim that "HIV is harmful". We would need to qualify the statement carefully. In this (admittedly absurd scenario) HIV would be judged to be both harmful and beneficial, depending on certain other factors.

If you are trying to defend the view that the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement is 'harmful' and never beneficial, then your argument collapses. PSA is beneficial to some people, including myself. It is not that I am simply resistant to a harmful idea, such that it has no effect on me. It is not neutral in its influence. It is beneficial. I have given my reasons for explaining why it is beneficial on a previous thread and I would happy to repeat those reasons here in due course.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Prostate Specific Antigen. That's what I think when I hear PSA. Yes, you should be concerned about it while considering your models of the Atonement.

Exactly my thought. I pee at night. More all the time. I have the blood test form from just before my month of Europeeing and walking, must go and get it done. Neighbour talks of anal ultrasound and the planting of radioactive seeds in his grapefruit. Can Jesus rescue his grapefruit? his soul being of less immediate concern to he, me and JC.

I am certain that there is a qualitative analysis that would combine Jesusly PSA and lower quadrant anatomical PSA together and provide a PSA (public service announcement) about it.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0