|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: PSA vs. the rest
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Denying the plain meaning, staring you in the face for two thousand years is nothing new either.
Except it's NOT the plain meaning and it's NOT staring me in the face. As has been demonstrated. Repeatedly. You see it in the scriptures because you read with PSA-tinted glasses. I do not.
Yes. It is ironic, given that Martin is arguing for a historically contextualized reading, that he seems so incapable of seeing beyond his own cultural context. I suppose it happens to the best of us. *shrug*
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Kwesi quote:
Martin, you make much of the fact that Jesus was a product of the culture of his time. That does not, however, point to his belief in Penal Substitution. However brutal the Jewish concept of God might have been, (though I suspect less so by the time of Jesus than earlier), there is nothing in its religion to suggest it believed in human sacrifice as an atonement for sin or anything else. Human sacrifice had been ruled out as early as Abraham and Isaac i.e. from the beginning.
Martin quote:
Kwesi. We all know that. So? Jesus was human. He was sacrificed. He sacrificed Himself. He was a human sacrifice. That's what He saw prophesied, that He must fulfil. That's how it looked, seemed, felt to Him. Why do you think that God ring fenced the concept?
He was condignly, officially, legally punished, penalized as a sinner and furthermore He BELIEVED it to be cosmically necessary.
So If "we all know that" then it would appear you agree that PSA was unlikely to have been part of the mind-set of Jesus.
I think you need to be more precise as to what you understand by "Jesus sacrificed himself". Do you mean it in the sense that we often refer to individuals as sacrificing themselves for a cause? Or do you mean it within the terms of a particular sacrificial system that required human sacrifice? If the latter, then I think you need to make the point clearer. You also need to show that Jesus' sacrificing of himself demonstrated his belief in PSA.
As for why God "ring-fenced" human sacrifice I can't pretend to have access to his mind. All I'm saying is that for whatever reason he restrained Abraham's hand, did not introduce it when dictating (or whatever) the Torah, or give any other indication of a desire for its introduction. So why Jesus, as a product of that culture, should have believed in PSA I'm at a loss to understand. Furthermore, the punishment he received had nothing to do with God, it had nothing to do with satisfying his wrath or justice, which is what PSA is all about. The ball, Martin, is clearly in your court.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
We have access to His mind through His words. Denying that PSA was in His thinking is like denying the Trinity because it wasn't formulated for 300 years.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
We have access to His mind through His words. Denying that PSA was in His thinking is like denying the Trinity because it wasn't formulated for 300 years.
With respect, Martin60, this is a feeble argument. Most Christians stick with the Trinity concept because we see it in the Bible. You've singularly failed to convince the doubters here (of whom I'm one) that PSA is actually in the Bible, or certainly that PSA is the dominant / only atonement theory in the Bible.
You've quoted many Bible passages in this thread, saying 'Look, PSA!'. Folks have explained why they don't see PSA in those verses and you've come back at them... to say 'Look, PSA!' again.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
We have access to His mind through His words. Denying that PSA was in His thinking is like denying the Trinity because it wasn't formulated for 300 years.
With respect, Martin60, this is a feeble argument. Most Christians stick with the Trinity concept because we see it in the Bible. You've singularly failed to convince the doubters here (of whom I'm one) that PSA is actually in the Bible, or certainly that PSA is the dominant / only atonement theory in the Bible.
You've quoted many Bible passages in this thread, saying 'Look, PSA!'. Folks have explained why they don't see PSA in those verses and you've come back at them... to say 'Look, PSA!' again.
That's because in this case, Martin is absolutely right and it is also in Paul's thinking. You just have to read Romans without your Tom Wright glasses or your Roman or Orthodox, Catholic ,Liberal Anglican heterodox mindset to realise that to a Jew, any Jew, God's wrath was and is not academic, it was experiential and to be avoided and appeased. The word 'propitiation' as the AV uses it carries the meaning of appeasing sacrifice, covering, and Paul could not have made it clearer that it was through the atoning sacrifice of Christ that we are spared God's anger and able to access his love. Ro 3:25 "whom God publicly displayed as a propitiation in his blood through faith" Take that out of the atonement and you do not have access to the Father through faith.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Most Christians stick with the Trinity concept because we see it in the Bible.
The reason most of us see the Trinity in the Bible is the same reason why most of see orthodox Christology in the Bible - because these dogmas were formulated over the first four ecumenical councils 325-451, and we have inherited them, and grown up with nothing else..
To many, then and since, they have not been self-evidently scriptural at all, and it was, and is, impossible to force these dissidents to “see” them.
In the same way, it is impossible to force anyone who doesn’t “get” the later formulation of PSA to accept it.
I think Monophysite Copts and Nestorian Assyrians/Chaldeans are wrong, as was the Arian John Milton, but I still regard them all as my brothers in Christ, just as I do those who reject PSA, as long as they are accessing God’s grace through some sort of apprehension of the atonement.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
We have access to His mind through His words. Denying that PSA was in His thinking is like denying the Trinity because it wasn't formulated for 300 years.
With respect, Martin60, this is a feeble argument. Most Christians stick with the Trinity concept because we see it in the Bible. You've singularly failed to convince the doubters here (of whom I'm one) that PSA is actually in the Bible, or certainly that PSA is the dominant / only atonement theory in the Bible.
You've quoted many Bible passages in this thread, saying 'Look, PSA!'. Folks have explained why they don't see PSA in those verses and you've come back at them... to say 'Look, PSA!' again.
That's because in this case, Martin is absolutely right and it is also in Paul's thinking.
Actually, I and several others acknowledged all along that substitution is found in Paul's writings, particularly in Romans. It was the claim that PSA was the only metaphor offered and the one offered by Jesus that we were disputing. Neither Martin nor you has yet to offer a single verse that shows Jesus articulating PSA.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You just have to read Romans without your Tom Wright glasses or your Roman or Orthodox, Catholic ,Liberal Anglican heterodox mindset to realise that to a Jew, any Jew, God's wrath was and is not academic, it was experiential and to be avoided and appeased. The word 'propitiation' as the AV uses it carries the meaning of appeasing sacrifice, covering, and Paul could not have made it clearer that it was through the atoning sacrifice of Christ that we are spared God's anger and able to access his love. Ro 3:25 "whom God publicly displayed as a propitiation in his blood through faith" Take that out of the atonement and you do not have access to the Father through faith.
Once again, that would be satisfaction, not substitution.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You just have to read Romans without your Tom Wright glasses or your Roman or Orthodox, Catholic ,Liberal Anglican heterodox mindset to realise <etc etc>
In other words you just have to be a conservative Protestant. Before there were conservative Protestants, how did we ever get along? How did we ever understand the atonement? O! O! We were lost and adrift in a Roman or Orthodox or Anglican liberal heterodox mindset. Clearly.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
that to a Jew, any Jew, God's wrath was and is not academic, it was experiential and to be avoided and appeased. The word 'propitiation' as the AV uses it carries the meaning of appeasing sacrifice, covering, and Paul could not have made it clearer that it was through the atoning sacrifice of Christ that we are spared God's anger and able to access his love.
I'm going to answer this as someone who accepts PSA as a (but not the only) useful, Biblically founded model of how the Incarnation, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Christ saves us.
As you've correctly identified, the wrath of God is something that is real and without somehow addressing that we are damned. And, that Christ took our place so that the wrath of God can be turned aside onto Him rather than us. Which I would say could be accurately described as Substitutionary Atonement.
What we (ie those of us who accept PSA) have real difficulty doing is establishing Scriptural support for the Penal part of PSA. There is not very much in Scripture supporting a view of sin as crime and God as a judge in a court of law. God as Judge often comes across more like an architect judging whether the labourers have built something properly such that it's structurally sound, a farmer judging the quality of the produce of his trees, etc.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What a wonderful semantic minefield!
Cliffdweller, I don't believe in PSA. Period. Even in Alan's terms. Especially in Alan's terms! The wrath of God is penal. His damning us is penal. And metaphoric.
He damned us by creating us.
And He doesn't believe that.
WE need the metaphors. He doesn't.
And what is also weak SCK (you've been missed), is that Jesus was obviously wrong by modern criteria in inescapably believing His culture's myths as literal.
He believed in Adam, Eve, the Flood, Sodom, Gomorrah, the Exodus, Samuel's Amalekite genocide: He believed in God the Killer.
He believed, as Alan is legalistically on the cusp of, in the SPIRIT of PSA.
Obviously.
How could He not?
He didn't believe in gay marriage however.
How could He?
The overall weakness is in trying to force God in a pre-modern Jewish Bronze-Iron Age man in to far more confining modern Christians. Left and right.
Something, despite my utter rhetorical inadequacy, I refuse to do any more.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Martin, that is a totally respectable wagon in which to ride, but, unfortunately, you've hitched it to the wrong horse. I don't see anyone here arguing that Jesus was other than a fully human first century Jew, with all that implies. However, one of those implications was definitely not PSA, which, even in conceptual terms, would not appear for another thousand or so years. And this thread is about PSA, not gay marriage or the fate of the Amalekites. First century Jews simply did not think that way, so, if Jesus really did believe anything analagous, He would have to have come up with it Himself. And, since the only evidence we have for Jesus beliefs is the Scriptural record, we would expect to see it there. It.simply.is.not.there.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Cliffdweller quote:
All five of the theories, as I have demonstrated, are biblical.
They may be biblically based, but what strikes me is that the references are so short, and disparate and their contextual links of such doubtful provenance that they are very weak foundations on which to construct convincing models or theories. Matthew 20:28, for example, does not seem to me to constitute support for the ransom theory of the atonement, though it may have some force as a metaphor for Christ's sacrificial life of obedient service. Such texts are being asked to do far more than intended.
What comes through to me from this and other discussions is not that theories of the atonement are biblically based so much as attempts by theologians in different historical and cultural contexts to articulate atonement in a way their societies could understand. One can see how Christus Victor made sense to a world dominated by Roman Imperialism, Satisfaction to the mediaeval world, and PSA to an emerging Protestant bourgeoisie. Atonement may be an eternal truth but theories as to how it works less so. I think the reason why PSA is so often in the firing line is that many of its supporters wish it to have creedal status and belief in it necessary for salvation.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Cliffdweller quote:
All five of the theories, as I have demonstrated, are biblical.
They may be biblically based, but what strikes me is that the references are so short, and disparate and their contextual links of such doubtful provenance that they are very weak foundations on which to construct convincing models or theories. Matthew 20:28, for example, does not seem to me to constitute support for the ransom theory of the atonement, though it may have some force as a metaphor for Christ's sacrificial life of obedient service. Such texts are being asked to do far more than intended.
What comes through to me from this and other discussions is not that theories of the atonement are biblically based so much as attempts by theologians in different historical and cultural contexts to articulate atonement in a way their societies could understand. One can see how Christus Victor made sense to a world dominated by Roman Imperialism, Satisfaction to the mediaeval world, and PSA to an emerging Protestant bourgeoisie. Atonement may be an eternal truth but theories as to how it works less so. I think the reason why PSA is so often in the firing line is that many of its supporters wish it to have creedal status and belief in it necessary for salvation.
This. I've mentioned on the Faith Free board that my guiding theological principle is "who knows, eh?" and that applies here. We can use these various models but to imagine they're any more definitive of the reality than an illustration of little soldiers fighting germs in our bloodstream is an illustration of how the immune system works is probably to overstate them.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I think the reason why PSA is so often in the firing line is that many of its supporters wish it to have creedal status and belief in it necessary for salvation.
That, and it makes God out to be a schizophrenic ogre.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Cliffdweller quote:
All five of the theories, as I have demonstrated, are biblical.
They may be biblically based, but what strikes me is that the references are so short, and disparate and their contextual links of such doubtful provenance that they are very weak foundations on which to construct convincing models or theories.
Which is also true of large parts of Christian theology and ethics. God has chosen not to provide us with a systematic theology laid out in Scripture, nor a detailed rule book for behaviour. What we have are collections of stories, some bits of advice given in particular circumstances (which may not have direct modern counterparts), hymns, prayers, poems ... and the collective intelligence of the church to try and make sense of all of that.
The early church had a belief in Jesus Christ as Saviour. Which is great, but raises all sorts of questions like "who is Jesus?" (which ultimately leads us to things like the doctrine of the Trinity, for which "the references are so short, and disparate and their contextual links of such doubtful provenance that they are very weak foundations on which to construct convincing models or theories."). And, of relevance to this discussion "what are we saved from?" and "how does Jesus save us?". It probably shouldn't surprise us that the Biblical texts that address those questions don't provide a strong logical foundations for any of the models proposed when the Bible doesn't even really do the same if we try to get answers to questions on the nature and person of Christ.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Well it seems to me your first paragraph does not necessitate God having to have his son killed. That would be nothing more than assertion.
Yes, I've been following the sub-topic launched by your question. The question of the need for Christ's sacrifice is obviously the topic at hand. Back to your original post that started the tangent, my point was that in the two "Satanward" theories it's not about God killing his son, but rather about God rescuing us from our captivity to sin, a captivity caused not by God but by the free choices of his creatures (us and/or Satan).
And this last sentence pinpoints exactly why this is so problematic. In trying to get God off the hook you have a 'captivity' that is caused by our freewill (us or Satan) that is so powerful it requires some sort of death. You have to have God's creation getting away from him and becoming so powerful that for some reason, God has to ensure his son is killed, to rescue us from ourselves.
This is a deeply unsatisfactory narrative and is probably the reason you have to go on to Boyd's imaginative improvisation...
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
I am not clear whether you are arguing that there was some sort of a 'fall' at some stage. Are you?
Metaphorically, yes. I don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve. I am a theistic evolutionist.
Greg Boyd posits a sort of "fall"-- a Satanic corruption of creation-- that occurs in the second nanosecond (not the right measurement of time-- I'm not a physicist) of creation that accounts for much of the natural evil in our world, including in the process of evolution itself (all that "red of tooth & claw" stuff). I find that notion helpful in understanding natural evil, an aspect of theodicy not many theologians of any system are addressing. (See parallel thread re theodicy).
Exactly! The whole: God 'just giving us freewill' somehow necessitated the cross, is a very unsatisfactory narrative. Consequently you imply that you accept there must be some sort of 'a fall' - where God's creation mysteriously gets away from him and acquires a power (or corruption), that cannot be tamed (or healed) apart from with the death of his Son.
Boyd's 'corruption of creation' just after the big bang strikes me as exactly the sort of fanciful flight of the imagination that is 'necessary' to make this take even vaguely credible.
Sadly this is partly the reason, I find it so lacking plausibility. It is a metanarrative that require a great deal of 'lets make things up as we go along'.
Come on, as far as I can see, you have no reason to believe any of this 'corruption of creation stuff', other than it somehow squares this rather inconvenient circle for you. Is there any evidence anywhere that would back any of this post 'big bang' stuff up?
[ 19. December 2014, 14:31: Message edited by: Luigi ]
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I think the reason why PSA is so often in the firing line is that many of its supporters wish it to have creedal status and belief in it necessary for salvation.
That, and it makes God out to be a schizophrenic ogre.
As you probably know, I disagree with your point here. However, I also really disagree with your use of the word schizophrenic - which is actually a very complex mental illness, rarely involving split personalities.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Luigi wrote:
And this last sentence pinpoints exactly why this is so problematic. In trying to get God off the hook you have a 'captivity' that is caused by our freewill (us or Satan) that is so powerful it requires some sort of death. You have to have God's creation getting away from him and becoming so powerful that for some reason, God has to ensure his son is killed, to rescue us from ourselves.
But there are other interpretations here. For example, you can see the atonement as the at-one-ment, that is, that the individual ego is sacrificed in order to bring about reconciliation with God.
You still have the issue of us 'getting away from' God, but I am not sure that that is all that problematic.
But many religions talk about an ego-annihilation which produces union, or reunion - the problem then, is why is the Christian version the special one?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Alan Cresswell quote:
The early church had a belief in Jesus Christ as Saviour. Which is great, but raises all sorts of questions like "who is Jesus?" (which ultimately leads us to things like the doctrine of the Trinity, for which "the references are so short, and disparate and their contextual links of such doubtful provenance that they are very weak foundations on which to construct convincing models or theories."). And, of relevance to this discussion "what are we saved from?" and "how does Jesus save us?". It probably shouldn't surprise us that the Biblical texts that address those questions don't provide a strong logical foundations for any of the models proposed when the Bible doesn't even really do the same if we try to get answers to questions on the nature and person of Christ.
So, is your argument that the biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity is just as flimsy as that supporting the various atonement theories? Do you consider some theological positions better supported by scripture than others, or are they all equally insecure? Is the Trinity no better supported than the Immaculate Conception, for example?
Clearly, you raise a very interesting question as to the relationship between biblical evidence and theological insights. Is theology detached from scripture?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What a wonderful semantic minefield!
Cliffdweller, I don't believe in PSA. Period. Even in Alan's terms. Especially in Alan's terms! The wrath of God is penal. His damning us is penal. And metaphoric.
Yes, I caught that early on. You don't believe in PSA, and therefore it's become your excuse for rejecting orthodox Christianity. The irony is that you read the Bible exactly like a fundamentalist-- woodenly, literally, and (as we've seen here) reading into the text what you expect it to say, even when it obviously says something quite differently. This is how fundamentalists read the Bible. The only difference is that while this wooden, literalistic, non reflective reading causes a fundamentalist to embrace a narrow version of Christianity, in your case it causes you to reject orthodoxy (or a part of orthodoxy-- not sure exactly how far you're wanting to go here).
We see this quite a lot. Two sides of the same coin.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
What comes through to me from this and other discussions is not that theories of the atonement are biblically based so much as attempts by theologians in different historical and cultural contexts to articulate atonement in a way their societies could understand. One can see how Christus Victor made sense to a world dominated by Roman Imperialism, Satisfaction to the mediaeval world, and PSA to an emerging Protestant bourgeoisie. Atonement may be an eternal truth but theories as to how it works less so. I think the reason why PSA is so often in the firing line is that many of its supporters wish it to have creedal status and belief in it necessary for salvation.
I agree. I think that intent is found in the biblical texts as well. The authors are writing to different audiences, using imagery that appeals to that particular group. Sometimes you'll find multiple images within the same text (e.g. Romans & Hebrews).
Again, that happens with metaphors. You have multiple metaphors, sometimes coming one after another or intertwined, all trying to describe the same thing-- because what you're trying to explain is so big, so cosmic, so transcendent, that it defies simple explanation.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Boyd's 'corruption of creation' just after the big bang strikes me as exactly the sort of fanciful flight of the imagination that is 'necessary' to make this take even vaguely credible.
Sadly this is partly the reason, I find it so lacking plausibility. It is a metanarrative that require a great deal of 'lets make things up as we go along'.
Come on, as far as I can see, you have no reason to believe any of this 'corruption of creation stuff', other than it somehow squares this rather inconvenient circle for you. Is there any evidence anywhere that would back any of this post 'big bang' stuff up?
Not sure what kind of "evidence" you're looking for. There's quite a bit of biblical evidence for the notion of "the corruption of creation"-- I'd quote verses but I'm not sure that's what you're looking for. When that "corruption" occurs is of course, a matter of debate. So yes, Boyd is going beyond revelation to offer a (quite debatable) hypothesis here.
It sounds more like you're looking for scientific "evidence" though. Which seems rather odd, since we're discussing something that's outside the realm of natural history. What would scientific "evidence" for ANY of these theories, or for the atonement itself, look like???
Wm. James suggested, and I would agree, that sin is the only empirically verifiable theological doctrine. And to some degree that's relevant here. The evidence for the "corruption of creation"-- that things are not as they should be-- is as close as your front door. Pretty much indisputable, which is why James suggests that that one precept-- "things aren't as they should be"-- is the one common element of every religious/ philosophical system.
Anything beyond that-- Why are things so messed up? Is there a God and does he care that things are messed up? If there's a God, why did he let it get so messed up? Is God going to do anything about it?-- that's all the conjecture that is the stuff from which religious belief is composed.
[ 19. December 2014, 15:34: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
On the contrary. You are reading me woodenly and literally. As you are generally prey to as you have to make the fall, whatever that is metaphoric for, work, or rather get Boyd to for you. Which it doesn't of course.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
On the contrary. You are reading me woodenly and literally. As you are generally prey to as you have to make the fall, whatever that is metaphoric for, work, or rather get Boyd to for you. Which it doesn't of course.
Of course. Persimmon wipe cheese-whiz.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And you reckon you're orthodox eh old girl?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And you reckon you're orthodox eh old girl?
Hi Martin just to clarify: Jesus saw himself as the lamb of God that takes our sin on himself and appeased the wrath so it doesn't fall on us. You believe he believed this but you don't believe he actually did it; but
you believe in him. Just hope your head faces frontwards when it finishes turning. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
[ 19. December 2014, 22:26: Message edited by: Jamat ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell: There is not very much in Scripture supporting a view of sin as crime and God as a judge in a court of law. [/QB]
Maybe start with Abraham; "shall not the judge of all thy earth do right?"
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You just have to read Romans without your Tom Wright glasses or your Roman or Orthodox, Catholic ,Liberal Anglican heterodox mindset to realise <etc etc>
In other words you just have to be a conservative Protestant.
No, a Jewish mindset would do it.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I'm glad you understand Jamat.
What a strange war we're in.
What He did and what He thought He was doing are not the same thing.
What He did was far bigger and better than PSA or any other theory of atonement.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What He did was far bigger and better than PSA or any other theory of atonement.
Profoundly true. And a big familiar-- where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah, pretty much every other poster on this thread.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There you go. You got there in the end.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell: There is not very much in Scripture supporting a view of sin as crime and God as a judge in a court of law.
Maybe start with Abraham; "shall not the judge of all thy earth do right?"
But, as Alan said, what sense of the English word 'judge' is meant in this reference? Judge as in one who decides on innocence or guilt, or judge as (Alan's words) 'an architect judging whether the labourers have built something properly such that it's structurally sound, a farmer judging the quality of the produce of his trees etc.'
I don't know enough about the ancient Hebrew language to say, but the latter sense is surely feasible?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
There you go. You got there in the end.
Or rather, the reverse. But that's OK-- we were waiting for you.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
There you go. You got there in the end.
No, we started there. YOU got there in the end.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell: There is not very much in Scripture supporting a view of sin as crime and God as a judge in a court of law.
Maybe start with Abraham; "shall not the judge of all thy earth do right?"
But, as Alan said, what sense of the English word 'judge' is meant in this reference?
Good question. Contextually, this concerns the prospective destruction of Sodom and the 'theophany' who appears to Abraham says 2 things. One is that Abraham should be informed. The second is that the wickedness of Sodom has drawn the Lord's attention. The nature of the judgement is therefore contingent on human action so I guess as in other divine interventions in the book of Genesis it is corrective, such as in the way Cain is driven away from God's presence or Adam is expelled from Eden. Somehow, for the good of humanity God had to intervene at that point.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What He did was far bigger and better than PSA or any other theory of atonement.
So what actually was that?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It won't work for you mate. Which is fine.
He broke through to us.
In EVERY sense He delivered us from sin and death.
You see, we're all different.
Forgiveness isn't contingent on anything. Like kindness. It isn't conditional. And I'm found wanting in kindness right here with you and mousethief and cliffdweller aren't I?
And forgiveness is just the beginning. It's the certainty - in Christ - that all will be well despite looking and being irreparably, unhealably unwell now.
You?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Jamat quote:
No, a Jewish mindset would do it.
Errr, no. To the Jews the manner of Christ's death indicated he was cursed by God.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Jamat quote:
No, a Jewish mindset would do it.
Errr, no. To the Jews the manner of Christ's death indicated he was cursed by God.
You need to be a bit Pauline.
[UBB code vs the rest]
[ 20. December 2014, 10:27: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Wrong mousethief. Completely and utterly wrong. You completely misunderstand. I can't understand it for you and I don't know why you won't understand.
But you won't.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Wrong mousethief. Completely and utterly wrong. You completely misunderstand. I can't understand it for you and I don't know why you won't understand.
But you won't.
Ah, Martin, you're adorable. There's a good boy, I think there's a treat for you in the kitchen, dear. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Parent-child eh? Matching me. Don't worry, I don't get angry at you as I do at mousethief. Or rather do worry ... he is at least a truly liberal Orthodox Christian.
Why he appears to deliberately misunderstand and misrepresent me I don't know. My paranoia I'm sure.
Just like I don't know why you have to believe in Boyd's dualism.
Although I feel that I do ...
There's something going on here which isn't amenable to even open Hellish discourse, let alone within the rules of purgatory. One would have to get openly ad hominem and I don't think either of you are up for it.
Happy to pop down to Hades if you call.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Parent-child eh? Matching me. Don't worry, I don't get angry at you as I do at mousethief. Or rather do worry ... he is at least a truly liberal Orthodox Christian.
Why he appears to deliberately misunderstand and misrepresent me I don't know.
What a coincidence.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Parent-child eh? Matching me. Don't worry, I don't get angry at you as I do at mousethief. Or rather do worry ... he is at least a truly liberal Orthodox Christian.
Why he appears to deliberately misunderstand and misrepresent me I don't know.
What a coincidence.
Pretty much this has been the goal all along:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Happy to pop down to Hades if you call.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Will you all please stop bickering in a Hellish manner about Hell-calls? Either go there, in the festive spirit of the season, or put a sock in it.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It won't work for you mate. Which is fine.
He broke through to us.
In EVERY sense He delivered us from sin and death.
You see, we're all different.
Forgiveness isn't contingent on anything. Like kindness. It isn't conditional. And I'm found wanting in kindness right here with you and mousethief and cliffdweller aren't I?
And forgiveness is just the beginning. It's the certainty - in Christ - that all will be well despite looking and being irreparably, unhealably unwell now.
You?
Most of that works for me.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Eutychus. Sir.
Jamat. YOU never cease to amaze me.
mousethief. Sorry. May we start again again? Again ...
As I'm the one proposing a postmodern antithesis, I MUST do the work.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
mousethief: Please, in the name of all that is holy, say no.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So, as Jesus had to faithfully believe all manner of pre-modern stuff, He had to believe He had to suffer and die for our sins.
Good job He came when He did.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
