|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Easter Message : Christ did not die for sin
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Well, exactly.
If God has already undergone the total punishment for every sin ever committed by any human ever (wow) then i find it kind of hard to believe that God undergoes that much extra suffering if I look at a naughty website...
Not that I am saying that it makes it ok.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Eh, it's a slippery slope, but I think you're still staying pretty close to the safe side of it.
It's funny, for a long term born again pastor who preaches absolute obedience to scripture to admit looking at soft core porn...that sends a totally different message than to have a serial rapist who's doing a life sentence admitting that he occasionally looks at soft core porn...and that's different than if a college student stuck in his dorm room with nothing more interesting to do looks at soft core porn.
Or to put it differently, for a grade A student to admit to getting a C is a totally different feeling than a failing student admitting to the same. We all want to be A students, but by definition, as A means exceptional, not all of us are. So we do what we can...
Maybe that's why we have grace.
[ETA spelling repairs]
[ 11. April 2007, 17:48: Message edited by: mirrizin ]
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
The chances of my living an utterly blameless life are, to be frank, about the same as the chances of Israel and Palestine coming to an amicable agreement by this time tomorrow...
Sinner that I am (although I would hate to give the impression that occasionally looking at women with no clothes on was the full extent of my iniquity).
The idea that I crucify Christ every time I slip up is a bit hard to take...
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Do Reformed people actually argue that Christ is crucified anew whenever we sin?
If they do it is rather odd. After all, the Reformers objected to the notion of the Unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass hence all that stuff in the Book of Evil about Christ making one perfect sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world (none of which need preclude the notion of the Mass as a sacrifice as it happens, snark, snark). Now if it is the case that we must not talk about the Mass as a sacrifice because the cross was one perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world then we ought not, logically, to maintain that every time Papio looks upon the female form divine the sacrifice of calvary is repeated. If that were the case we could abandon the notion of attending Mass on feasts of obligation in favour of looking at naughty pictures on the internet. Either Christ died once for the sins of the whole world, in which case he doesn't die again in the Mass and doesn't die again when someone types something inappropriate into a search engine or the whole thing is blown wide open again.
I've phrased this somewhat facetiously but it's a serious question. Do PSAers believe that Christ is recrucified when someone sins? If so, why?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Do Reformed people actually argue that Christ is crucified anew whenever we sin?
I've phrased this somewhat facetiously but it's a serious question. Do PSAers believe that Christ is recrucified when someone sins? If so, why?
Er, no. On both accounts.
Where did you get this idea??
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Papio raised the subject - I'm not sure where the idea comes from - but as he'd mentioned it I thought it was worth discussing.
[ETA - thanks for answering, btw!]
[ 11. April 2007, 19:19: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
God does not want "Justice" to prevail.
That's not what Jesus taught.
(Or Paul, or Isaiah, or Amos or any of the apostles and prophets)
It depends what you mean by "justice".
I understood Andreas1984 to mean justice of the sort that PSA implies - "I'm not going to even think about reconciling with you until I hurt you or someone else; after that, we can talk."
The "justice" of the prophets - depending on which prophet you're talking about - is overwhelmingly about God being angry that the powerful have set up a society where they get all the "stuff" and the poor are starving. Same thing for Jesus, who stands in the prophetic tradition.
Jesus emphatically did NOT teach anything remotely like hurting someone who has hurt you. This is the whole reason I am opposed to PSA, a theory that has its roots in the feudal system and knights who had to preserve their "honour".
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Jesus emphatically did NOT teach anything remotely like hurting someone who has hurt you. This is the whole reason I am opposed to PSA, a theory that has its roots in the feudal system and knights who had to preserve their "honour".
I think you are conflating Anselm's theory of the atonement with PSA. I think Anselm who uses the feudal language of satisfaction isn't saying that if someone bashes you you must bash them back. He's saying that to restore a relationship both parties must be able to be reconciled.
PSA derives from Calvin who was effectively the head of government in Geneva. I'm not sure how I'd characterise 16th century Geneva but it wasn't feudal. I think the whole feudalism thing is a red herring in this context.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Jesus emphatically did NOT teach anything remotely like hurting someone who has hurt you. This is the whole reason I am opposed to PSA, a theory that has its roots in the feudal system and knights who had to preserve their "honour".
I think you are conflating Anselm's theory of the atonement with PSA. I think Anselm who uses the feudal language of satisfaction isn't saying that if someone bashes you you must bash them back. He's saying that to restore a relationship both parties must be able to be reconciled.
PSA derives from Calvin who was effectively the head of government in Geneva. I'm not sure how I'd characterise 16th century Geneva but it wasn't feudal. I think the whole feudalism thing is a red herring in this context.
I understand Anselm's own theory to be based on a civil justice model and it's main purpose to be that of addressing "the seriousness of sin", which other theories are weak on. I'm not wildly enamoured of it as a stand-alone theory but I find the civil-justice model less objectionable with respect to what it implies about God's character.
I understand Calvin's model to be a "twist" on Anselm's theory, but not "erasing" it. Calvin's theory takes up an idea that was popular in his time in religious and civil society about "the rule of law" - an idea that was challenging the divine right of kings.
(A possibly unnecesary and therefore parentheical comment => I believe that social attitudes take hundreds of years to change and therefore, I believe that feudal and medieval cultures overlapped for a considerable amount of time. I'm not convinced that the concept of "personal honour" has totally died out in European and American society to this day.)
If you don't like the comment about feudalism, then let me say that PSA to me says that both law and revenge trump grace and mercy. Whereas I think that "even" in the Old Testament, there is plenty of textual evidence that says the reverse.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Seeker 963:
quote:
I understand Calvin's model to be a "twist" on Anselm's theory, but not "erasing" it. Calvin's theory takes up an idea that was popular in his time in religious and civil society about "the rule of law" - an idea that was challenging the divine right of kings.
I think PSA does erase Anselm's theory. In his 'Meditation on the Redmption' Anselm states that there are no necessities in God. That is to say the atonement is not for His benefit. The atonement is there for us. PSA, AFAICS, insists that for God to be able to forgive God must punish someone - Jesus. Anselm would, I think, have objected very strongly to that.
quote:
If you don't like the comment about feudalism, then let me say that PSA to me says that both law and revenge trump grace and mercy. Whereas I think that "even" in the Old Testament, there is plenty of textual evidence that says the reverse.
Well, I largely agree with you. But I don't think that this is what Anselm is saying.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FromAfrica
Apprentice
# 12523
|
Posted
I see this is a huge theological debate. Maybe the best place to start is the beginning. Is it possible that the story of garden in the land of Eden is a story that can be a parable also. Don't we have the exact same choices. The tree of Life or the tree of good and evil. Jesus Christ is Life and knowledge of good and evil is the same as sin and death. Isn't it the serpent who said to Eve "You will be like god knowing good and evil" Which god? Himself, the serpent, of course. If we focus too much on sin and death we miss the Life-giving spirit who is God the creator. The messiah. John 3:16 For God so loved the world...."
--------------------
Out of Darkest Africa.
Posts: 9 | From: KwaZulu Natal | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I think PSA does erase Anselm's theory. In his 'Meditation on the Redmption' Anselm states that there are no necessities in God. That is to say the atonement is not for His benefit. The atonement is there for us. PSA, AFAICS, insists that for God to be able to forgive God must punish someone - Jesus. Anselm would, I think, have objected very strongly to that.
OK, thanks for that comment. I did always see PSA as an additional eloboration to Anselm. I will check that out.
I've only ever (relatively) briefly worshipped in a Calvinist tradition and my knowledge of Calvinism is weak. If what you say is true, then that lends a whole different twist on the story for me personally (as the more I learn about Calvinism, the less I like it and the happier I am to be an Arminian/catholic).
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FromAfrica:
If we focus too much on sin and death we miss the Life-giving spirit who is God the creator.
Amen! And welcome to the Ship.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
I think these questions about PSA and SA etc are tough for those of us from the various Reformed/Restorationist traditions. There are many different explanations for Christ's actions, but which one(s) is/are most accurately reflecting The Truth?
Sola Scriptura doesn't quite cover it, because almost every explanation can be demonstrated from and defended by Scripture.
Mudfrog and others, what do you use to determine which is/are the correct explanations?
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Unlike the caricatured con evo portrayed on the Ship, I have to say that I find merit in them all.
Would you believe I have gone all Holy Week and Easter without mentioning PSA once?
I think you may find that as far as atonement theories are concerned, con evos are a little more broad-minded when it comes to atonement theories than a great many 'liberals'.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
On this idea that when you sin you put Jesus back on the cross, I always thought it strange that in the post-apostolic church it became a tradition almost to put off baptism until the last minute, as it were, because there was 'no forgiveness of sins' after the cleansing of baptism. And that's not reformed or Protestant theology at all!
There is a wonderful verse in 1 John 2 v 1:
"My little children, I write these thngs to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous."
In other words, after conversion/baptism, there is always forgiveness available through the once and for all sacrifice. It's an 'available' atonement. The next verse says "he is the propitiation for our sins and not only ours, but also for the whole world."
That one atonement made on the cross is 'there' for our benefit, for the benefit of those who believe. There is no second crucifixion that happens when we sin; when we go to our advicate, he draws upon that immeasurable 'reservoir of grace' and freely forgives those who truly repent.
Why people should ever fear they might die in sin when God has welcomed them into his family, I shall never know. Is our salvation really dependent upon our own effort?
Is grace so weak that we have to clutch at it and live in a monastery lest we see something we shouldn't?
grace flows - it doesn't have to be obtained through another sacrifice.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Reader's Digest:
Sanityman: MartinPCN&SBH & others: I've noticed that a lot of PSA defenders seem to imply that those who reject PSA (or understand atonement differently) are morally deficient, or seeking to "water down" the seriousness of sin or the cost of redemption. Do you feel this is the case, and if so why?
- Martin: I suppose I do to be honest. Both. And I am more morally deficient than they. It's the exclusive insistence on anything but PSA. Which is typical of a failure to be confronted by the terribleness, terrible otherness of God. The drowner and baptizer of the world.
Sanityman: For me, PSA just doesn't make sense on a moral level. Is it wrong to seek for biblical ways of looking at atonement that do?
- Martin: I don't know what that means. PSA not making sense on a moral level. It makes sense on a narrative, primal, emotional, primitive, real, bloody level. And no it's not wrong at all to look for other ways AS WELL. I just don't know what you mean by moral? Fair? Reasonable? The vast majority of mankind will have no problem with it AND all the other facets of atonement.
John Spears: ... Regardless of whether it's Biblical or logical - I can understand the attraction of it for some people.
Firstly... as a believer, you go straight to heaven when you die.
- Martin: Ah believe brother, but I ain't goin to heaven when ah dah. Or any where else straight away in real time I suspect. It's coming here. I might get to fly if I should be here and twinkled, better than Elijah even, who, of course, didn't fly to heaven either.
John Spears: Secondly .... if you are a Calvinist (as protestants traditionally were) then your whole theological system falls down (which incident[al]ly is why almost all of the most outspoken critics of any theory of atonement OTHER than PSA have been 5 point Calvinist) - for many of them, the fact that God poured out his wrath on Christ IS the gospel, therefore if you don't believe that - then you just aren't a believer.
- Martin: that is the CRUX of the gospel, perfectly, obviously, plainly, childishly, blindingly, primitively, intendedly, biblically orthodox. But it ISN'T all of the gospel. The good news. Of Jesus and the Kingdom and more. Which involves the salvation of Sodom and Gomorrah even. In the words of Jesus of course.
John Spears: For Arminians though - doesn't PSA logically entail universalism? I mean, if God 'paid the price/debt' for every persons sins then isn't everybody saved?
- Martin: Nope. Not to this Calminian. And yes. If they WANT. If they respond to the revelation of their salvation in the resurrection to judgement (sorry I refuse to remove the mute 'E' there) positively. Some - vast numbers, Gog, Magog - potentially won't. Or is that in the Millenium? Or both?
leo - I'm not Jewish. Value as I do then Jewish context and lesser Jewish insight, it doesn't compare with THE Jew's; Christ's. Jesus fulfills the prophets, is the culmination, the raison d'etre of prophecy. The alpha and the omega of it.
Andy - what did I say about Paul? What didn't I say about Paul that you did? And yes, let's not. Darkness is more than an absence of illumination isn't it? I have failed to trust God most recently. Especially in His dark sayings.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Do Reformed people actually argue that Christ is crucified anew whenever we sin?
I've phrased this somewhat facetiously but it's a serious question. Do PSAers believe that Christ is recrucified when someone sins? If so, why?
Er, no. On both accounts.
Where did you get this idea??
Possibly someone caught a rendition of Feel the Nails over Easter?
It's an idea I've often heard expressed in sermons, etc -- that our sins cause Jesus to suffer just as He did on the cross.
[ 11. April 2007, 21:49: Message edited by: Trudy Scrumptious ]
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
- Martin: I don't know what that means. PSA not making sense on a moral level. It makes sense on a narrative, primal, emotional, primitive, real, bloody level. And no it's not wrong at all to look for other ways AS WELL. I just don't know what you mean by moral? Fair? Reasonable? The vast majority of mankind will have no problem with it AND all the other facets of atonement.
Martin, you keep saying this and I want to say that to me it makes absolutely no sense at all.
It makes sense to me that, without God people want to beat each other into a bloody pulp.
If we are perfectly capable of torturing each other for the least little infraction, why the heck do we need a God? We certainly don't need a God to teach us how to hate and kill each other. And we certainly don't need a God to hurt human beings - we're perfectly capable of that ourselves.
Or are you just worried that some individual or other may escape torture and that's what you want a God for? To search and destroy every single individual in the worst possible way?
Please note, I'm NOT being facetious or sarcastic. This is what I "get" from your posts. And your views make no sense to me whatsoever, so please stop suggesting that they make some kind of "universal sense". To you, maybe. To me, not at all.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
The only thing I can think of would be the hymnthat has these words:
In every insult, rift and war
where colour, wealth and scorn divide
he suffers still, though loves the more,
and loves tough ever crucified.
Though I guess that isn't our individual sins recrucifying Jesus, but more a poetic word picture of a crucifix.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Seeker963 - none taken. They DO make universal sense, except to the ethereal, nature's flower children, the innocent. You're just not sinner enough, not deep down and dirty enough, not sick enough, not primitive enough Seeker963. I am. Like the vast majority of people who have ever lived. Ignorant. Frightened. Still. You are not. So it doesn't apply to you. Fine. And I'm not being facetious either.
We can't possibly communicate because you don't understand me at all, because I have failed to 'make' you understand. I can't do it. I understand you I believe. Which can't be true. Completely. But you manifestly don't understand me and read, transfer, project all sorts of weirdness on to me. It's my fault. But not completely. Your penultimate two paragraphs are nothing to do with me, my faith, my understanding, my theodicy, my apologetics.
The bible SCREAMS real, bloody, retributive justice, damnation - not perverted metaphors - AND mercy. Outrageous grace. Grace that most liberals and conservatives are equally blind to.
They are rhetorical? Your questions?
"If we are perfectly capable of torturing each other for the least little infraction, why the heck do we need a God?"
I don't see the syllogism.
"We certainly don't need a God to teach us how to hate and kill each other."
Absolutely.
"And we certainly don't need a God to hurt human beings - we're perfectly capable of that ourselves."
Agreed.
"Or are you just worried that some individual or other may escape torture and that's what you want a God for?"
No.
"To search and destroy every single individual in the worst possible way?"
No.
Any other questions?
Really?
We're very close you know. Very close. But incredibly far apart.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Calvin's theory takes up an idea that was popular in his time in religious and civil society about "the rule of law" - an idea that was challenging the divine right of kings.
The Western European Middle Ages was quite familiar with the "rule of law". The idea goes way back in history - to at least classical times if not before, and it is arguably in the Old Testament - and was explicitly named and described by Roman writers. Justinian knew of it. There was a old bit of egregious self-defence that the autocratic Emperors were in fact within the system because the Emperor honoured the law as he promulgated it.
It was taken up by the Roman church and survived, at least in theory, through the Middle Ages. In Calvin's time the Divine Right of Kings was coming into fashion. It was the age of autocracy. In Britain Henry VIII was keen on it, and James and Charles I thought they had it. No-one really before in the same way - and no-one since, now that they know what we do to them when they try it on.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
What I find strange in the context of liberal thinkers not liking to be told they are wrong, is that con-evos are constantly being told they ae wrong by the liberal thinkers for believing in PSA.
If I started a thread condemning Christus Victor and saying about it's supporters the things said to PSA believers, I would justifiably be called to hell.
How come you want me to let you believe whatever you want but you very verbally and aggressively tell me that I should not be a believer in PSA because of this, that and the other reason??
And don't forget, PSA is not mutually exclusive of he other theories which is why I can accept them all in a very broad-minded way, which seems to be lost on those who say PSA is beyond the pale.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
How come you want me to let you believe whatever you want but you very verbally and aggressively tell me that I should not be a believer in PSA because of this, that and the other reason??
It's because of what it says about God and reality if it's pushed too far. If you do that, you start believing that justice is satisfied as long as somebody is punished, whoever that may be. So it would have been a perfectly just outcome if instead of locking up Fred West, we'd shot Mother Theresa for his crimes. Furthermore if God cannot forgive without punishing someone, and God is good, we should not forgive without punishing someone either. In PSA to its opponents, forgiveness is an outcome of displaced punishment rather than something freely given.
Now, the worst accusation I've seen against any of the other views of atonement is that they don't take sin seriously enough. Given that all views agree that the outcome of sin is the Cross it's difficult to see how this is the case, but the point is that such objections don't say anything offensive about God.
Let me put this another way. Consider the difference between SA and PSA. In the former, Christ by his sacrifice of perfect obedience unto death reconciles humanity to God and heals the damage done by our sin. In the latter, Christ suffers the punishment God says someone must undergo before he will forgive us. Objections to this have been given, what's your objection to the former?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What I find strange in the context of liberal thinkers not liking to be told they are wrong, is that con-evos are constantly being told they ae wrong by the liberal thinkers for believing in PSA.
If I started a thread condemning Christus Victor and saying about it's supporters the things said to PSA believers, I would justifiably be called to hell.
How come you want me to let you believe whatever you want but you very verbally and aggressively tell me that I should not be a believer in PSA because of this, that and the other reason??
And don't forget, PSA is not mutually exclusive of he other theories which is why I can accept them all in a very broad-minded way, which seems to be lost on those who say PSA is beyond the pale.
Well, actually, I don't think that is true. Of course the bit that I think you are wrong to give such a prominance to PSA is true, but I don't think anyone has suggested that you believe what you believe because you are being unfaithful to the Gospel, or because you are wilfully ignoring the plain teaching of scripture, which is the position which you appear to take. The nearest it has come to that is the suggestion, on occasion, in a very few posts, that you are somewhat theologically naive. Now, whilst that is probably sailing close to the wind for purgatory, and probably not very edifying, I really don't think there is an equivalence here.
What has been happening is that we have been exploring different theories of the Atonement. Most people believe that there are a variety of ways of understanding the Atonement, for all of which there is some scriptural support. That is the position which I hold, and I suspect is also held by you. The difference is, ISTM, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you priveledge one particular view, PSA, as being the "real" model, with the others merely different nuances, valid, but only in so far as they rest on your priveledged model. Other people, myself included, dispute the primacy of PSA. Some, myself included, consider it, in the way it is normally expressed, to be close to, or actually, heretical, and problematic because, basically, it seems to me, and again I can only speak for myself, it is a slur on God's character.
Against these charges, you have stepped into the breach to defend PSA. That's fine. But if you defend it, not on its own merits, but on the basis of what you perceive to be ulterior motives from the other side of the debate, you must accept that people will be upset, not just at the slur, but from frustration stemming from the fact that you don't seem to want to hear what the other side is saying. In other words, it comes across as preaching rather than debating.
Now if you want to attack CV, or the Abelard exemplar model, and you want to explore why others think them better than PSA, you are free to do so, and I'm reasonably confident that you will find those willing to debate with you. I'm not really convinced that they will denigrate your walk with God in that debating process.
BTW, I've been following this thread quite closely, and I don't recall anyone telling you, aggressively or otherwise, that you shouldn't believe in PSA. They've merely pointed out why they think it's a poor model, and tried to examine why you are so attached to something that is so obviously wrong to them, yet so obviously right to you.
--------------------
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
|
|
John Spears
Shipmate
# 11694
|
Posted
"Martin: Nope. Not to this Calminian. And yes. If they WANT. If they respond to the revelation of their salvation in the resurrection to judgement (sorry I refuse to remove the mute 'E' there) positively. Some - vast numbers, Gog, Magog - potentially won't. Or is that in the Millenium? Or both? "
But this defeats the point. If there was a debt of punishment due, and Christ paid that debt for every single person that ever lived then even if they didn't believe - the debt has been paid. Surely using this legal model, if there is no debt they go straight to heaven?
Posts: 140 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
[ETA: X-posted with Jolly Jape]
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What I find strange in the context of liberal thinkers not liking to be told they are wrong, is that con-evos are constantly being told they ae wrong by the liberal thinkers for believing in PSA.
If I started a thread condemning Christus Victor and saying about it's supporters the things said to PSA believers, I would justifiably be called to hell.
How come you want me to let you believe whatever you want but you very verbally and aggressively tell me that I should not be a believer in PSA because of this, that and the other reason??
And don't forget, PSA is not mutually exclusive of he other theories which is why I can accept them all in a very broad-minded way, which seems to be lost on those who say PSA is beyond the pale.
Mudfrog, your point is fair, and has been made by others outside the ship: the "open evangelicals" (and more liberal types) are better at dishing criticism than receiving it. However (there's always a however, isn't there?) I think you're being a touch disingenuous in saying than "con-evos" in general hold PSA as anything other than being the centre point of the gospel.
A recent example was the Steve Chalke controversy, when he wrote a populist book critcising PSA (NB: not abandoning substitutionary atonement as some hae suggested. DA Carson, in his book "Becoming conversant with the emerging church" had this to say:
quote:
I have to say, as kindly but as forcefully as I can, that to my mind, if words mean anything, both McLaren and Chalke have largely abandoned the Gospel.
He's not the only one. It seems that, contra what you said, for a lot of conservative evangelicals PSA is the gospel (this may not be true for you, of course).
Now, personally, I think a "gospel" that tells people:
(i) you're all going to hell because god is angry at you and wants to punish you eternally, but
(ii) you can escape if you do what I say
(NB always (i) before (ii): you've got to sell people the problem before you sell them the solution)
is no good news at all. It's more "God hates you (but you can get him to change his mind)." And I know that that statement's an unfair caricature, but that's how it sounds to me.
I could say more about how confused retributive justice and vengance get in the human mind, but I've gone on long enough...
- Chris.
[ 12. April 2007, 09:44: Message edited by: sanityman ]
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Any other questions?
So my questions is why you think God demands a bloody, beaten human sacrifice before he will deal with us?
I've experienced - as a child - the out-of-control rage of adults and I've experienced their penitence afterwards. This is how I know - know - that I could kill someone.
You can call the after-rage-penitance wonderful, amazing, generous grace if you want to. I call it a person who is out of control and being far less than his or her potential as a human being and, if God is really like that, then I'm choosing hell. And I'm NOT being facetious.
Maybe - just maybe - some of the pictures of an out-of-control raging God are human projections?
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: We're very close you know. Very close. But incredibly far apart.
That sounds to me like you're projecting that I think I'm better than you?
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
How come you want me to let you believe whatever you want
If you really want an answer, Mudfrog, it's in phrases like you "letting me believe what I want".
The fact is, that you have no CONTROL over what I believe. (Hypothetical "I" and "me" throughout this post.)
There are lots of Christian theologies out there. If there were not, there would not be many different denominations.
I think that people's issue is when, instead of discussing the ideas of a particular doctrine, you resort to saying something like "You just don't agree with me because you're not a real Christian." OK, fine, leave it at that. That answer applies to every single theological where you and I may disagree and there is therefore no need to discuss the ideas.
Purgatory is the place for discussing the different ideas surrounding PSA. Hell is the place for calling into question a person's motivations.
Furthermore, if someone wants to get me believing as they do about a doctrine, they are going to have to persuade me of thier ideas. Telling me that my heart is wrongly directed is not going to convince me of their point of view.
[ 12. April 2007, 10:16: Message edited by: Seeker963 ]
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Astro
Shipmate
# 84
|
Posted
To go back to the breaking your neighbour's window analogy. Surely it is the case that the person who has broken the window should pay to have it repaired however in PSA the window's owner (God) pays to have it repaired. If nobody paid the window would never get repaired.
The importtant point is that we are not Arians thus the Judge (God) does not let somone else take the punishment in our place but takes it Himself. Only to an Arian could PSA be "child-abuse".
--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)
Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Surely that is patripassianism. In PSA, as I understand it the Father punishes the Son which is at least orthodox in Trinitarian terms, but open to the objection that you have cited.
[ETA - I don't want to get into the vulgar abuse bit so I'm prepared to concede theoretically that it may be possible for PSA to counter said objection but not through the argument Astro has taken.]
[ 12. April 2007, 12:00: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Maybe - just maybe - some of the pictures of an out-of-control raging God are human projections?
I think its more likely that your misereading of the PSA position as "out of control, raging" is you thinking about God as if he were some of the humans you have known. That's not what (most of) the PSA people are saying at all.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
leo - I'm not Jewish. Value as I do then Jewish context and lesser Jewish insight, it doesn't compare with THE Jew's; Christ's. Jesus fulfills the prophets, is the culmination, the raison d'etre of prophecy. The alpha and the omega of it.
You may not be Jewish but Isaiah and the disciples/evangelists were - so they would have written and thought in terms allowed by the Hebrew of the text, not distorted it to mean something that it didn't. A lot of scholarship by the likes of E. P. Sanders has shown how the Suffering servant song has been misunderstood, misinterpreted, even twisted to fit doctrines like PSA. Integrity behoves us to let scripture speak rather that make it fit our a priori beliefs.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Maybe - just maybe - some of the pictures of an out-of-control raging God are human projections?
I think its more likely that your misereading of the PSA position as "out of control, raging" is you thinking about God as if he were some of the humans you have known. That's not what (most of) the PSA people are saying at all.
I'm talking to Martin PC-Not about his view of God. I have no idea whether Martin's views are PSA or not. As far as I understand Martin, his view of God as angry seems to warrant the word "raging". And even I don't think his view is typical of those who believe in PSA.
I think that there are two issues here with regards to PSA:
1) The popular way that it is expressed; and
2) The theoretical/academic expression of PSA.
Whatever Martin's view is, I'm not even viewing it as PSA.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
John Spears - incredibly it's down to us to accept the price. We don't have to. We may be utterly incapable of even recognising the need. Hardened. Satan is. God won't force Heaven on any one. Can't. Love can't do that.
Seeker963. Peace my brother / sister. Peace. Your pain is ghastly to behold. Your point too poignant and I am unwise to go any further. I'll think and pray and try, perhaps not here.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
John Spears - incredibly it's down to us to accept the price. We don't have to. We may be utterly incapable of even recognising the need. Hardened. Satan is. God won't force Heaven on any one. Can't. Love can't do that.
Seeker963. Peace my brother / sister. Peace. Your pain is ghastly to behold. Your point too poignant and I am unwise to go any further. I'll think and pray and try, perhaps not here.
Um, OK, Martin. Do what you need to do. I don't reveal anything I don't want to reveal here and I don't think I feel any pain - although, yes, I do sometimes still feel anger. This is one of the experiences from which I believe that God has taught me that forgiveness-for-forgiveness-sake is Up There on the top of his list in his scheme of salvation (and I also believe that forgiveness is solidly biblical). Final point - I'm not claiming any great suffering and I don't think I have suffered in comparison to many, many people I know.
But be at peace. I confess I don't understand your writing style enough for a conversation between us to be productive. I remain your sister in Christ.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
So my questions is why you think God demands a bloody, beaten human sacrifice before he will deal with us?
Because that sacrifice is God himself. In making that sacrifice, he takes upon himself all the hurt, pain and misery we've caused, takes all the consequences of what we've done and dies with them. Because he loves us so much, then when we make a relationship with him, he's prepared to be the one who carries the can all the time, and abides by the faults of the other. He took all those with him on the cross, and because of it he can love us perfectly.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
So my questions is why you think God demands a bloody, beaten human sacrifice before he will deal with us?
Because that sacrifice is God himself. In making that sacrifice, he takes upon himself all the hurt, pain and misery we've caused, takes all the consequences of what we've done and dies with them. Because he loves us so much, then when we make a relationship with him, he's prepared to be the one who carries the can all the time, and abides by the faults of the other. He took all those with him on the cross, and because of it he can love us perfectly.
I think we've been through this all a million times, have we not?
In order to prove to me that PSA is the only way to see atonement, you need to prove to me why God is completely and utterly unable to forgive unless there is a dead, beaten and broken human body.
My view of the atonement sees God as making a sacrifice, taking upon himself all the hurt, pain and misery we've caused, and all the consequences of what we've done and dying with them. My view of the atonement says that God loves us so much, then when we make a relationship with him, he's prepared to be the one who carries the can all the time, and that he abides by the faults of the other. My view of the atonement says that he took all those with him on the cross, and because of it he can love us perfectly.
In saying that my view of the atonement is inadequate and entirely wrong and unworkable, I need to know how it is wrong and unworkable. Not only does my view "work for me"; it worked for the church before anyone thought of PSA and it's in line with Scripture.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Seeker963. God's anger, His wrath is judicial. Formal. Rational. Fully under control. Perfect.
His feelings about the matter are infinitely more unknowably complex as one would expect from The Omnipath. The all-feeling one. All feeling, all powerful, ineffable Love.
I'm more than happy and in fact more prepared than most if not all liberals to invoke His outrageous grace above His terrible otherwise utterly implacable justice. You don't understand me. You will. You can. Even if you don't agree. Won't. You will understand. I can't make you. I'm not able enough. But you inevitably will. It may well take 20, 40 years, but you will. You're smart enough to. Empathic enough to. Once the outrage and compulsive rationalization can be suspended.
The utterly paradoxical God of the relatively uninterpreted Bible is very credible to me. Dangerous and good. Aslan.
He isn't to you or leo. So be it. That's your disposition, both. Nothing whatsoever to do with intellect. Or morality. Or sensitivity. It's about being seven under duress again. It's psychological. Developmental. Existential.
No matter how bad God looks, He's good, He'll prove it. Trust Him.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
Seeker963, I'm confused. I never claimed that PSA is the only way to atonement, and neither do very many other people, save those who actually hold a rather broad brush view of what 'PSA' actually means.
Why did you then quote me almost exactly, and make it look like your view? Were you saying that your view is the same as what I'd written? Or did you make a quoting error? In which case, why did you personalise the text?
As for this: quote:
you need to prove to me why God is completely and utterly unable to forgive unless there is a dead, beaten and broken human body.
That's nothing to do with PSA. That's to do with Jesus' dying on the cross. No matter what theories anyone may have about the mechanisms involved, it's unthinkable that Jesus would have put himself through death, and through such a terrible death, unless it had been absolutely necessary. To suggest otherwise is to suggest either that Jesus didn't have control, or that he was a madman, or some weird gnostic-docetic nonsence.
[ 12. April 2007, 22:35: Message edited by: Dinghy Sailor ]
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
As for this: quote:
you need to prove to me why God is completely and utterly unable to forgive unless there is a dead, beaten and broken human body.
That's nothing to do with PSA. That's to do with Jesus' dying on the cross. No matter what theories anyone may have about the mechanisms involved, it's unthinkable that Jesus would have put himself through death, and through such a terrible death, unless it had been absolutely necessary. To suggest otherwise is to suggest either that Jesus didn't have control, or that he was a madman, or some weird gnostic-docetic nonsence.
No, you just aren't reading the word in Seeker's statement. Let me emphazise: "you need to prove to me why God is completely and utterly unable to forgive..."
There are at least three standard views of the atonement that call out different sources of the necessity:
1. Glossing over FCB's fine comments on Anselm, the usual idea of substitutionary atonement in all forms is that God needed satisfaction of some form or another;
2. The canonical form of the ransom theory of atonement says that Satan required the sacrifice; and
3. Moral example (or influence) theory and many cognates say that we humans needed the sacrifice to overcome our sinful nature.
None of the are gnostic: all of them are mainstream Christian to this day. But there is nothing that says that we must all find meaning in any of these (let alone all of them) to be mainstream Christian.
--Tom Clune
[ 12. April 2007, 22:48: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Because that sacrifice is God himself. In making that sacrifice, he takes upon himself all the hurt, pain and misery we've caused, takes all the consequences of what we've done and dies with them. Because he loves us so much, then when we make a relationship with him, he's prepared to be the one who carries the can all the time, and abides by the faults of the other. He took all those with him on the cross, and because of it he can love us perfectly.
This is a fine exposition of a theory of atonement that has a lot going for it. (It's very similar to Rowan Williams' theory in his book Resurrection.) What it is not is either:
Penal (nobody is punished for anything)
or
Subsitutionary (since Jesus isn't exactly being substituted for anyone).
There are certainly things that happen to Jesus that therefore don't happen to other people, but we wouldn't ordinarily use the word 'substitution' in those cases.
Suppose there's a drug-addict. The law of the country says that drugs are illegal. Now suppose the President issues a pardon for the drug-addict. That's ok, but it doesn't deal with the addiction or the effects of the drugs on the system. But suppose the President's son voluntarily offers to take on all the effects of the drug into his system, because the President can cure him (the son) in a way in which he can't cure the addict directly? [1]
That's the theory you've just described, am I right?
Now PSA says: the President can just wave a magic wand and make the drug-addict better. But the President cannot issue a pardon without condemning someone (it doesn't matter who).
Now those of us who don't accept PSA can't see why the President can't just issue a pardon, and supposing that the President can't issue the pardon, we really can't see why it doesn't matter who gets punished.
If I'm the victim and I want sin to be punished I want the perpetrators punished. If the wrong person is punished that just makes it worse. Some people seem not to mind too much if an innocent person is punished - say a paediatrician is punished rather than a paedophile - but I think that even then it's just a desire to think that the right person has been punished and not to look too closely at the details.
Dafyd
[1] Perhaps the son's blood type is compatible with both the addict and President, but the addict and President aren't compatible with each other. This analogy is beginning to become medically implausible.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
He took all those with him on the cross, and because of it he can love us perfectly.
So God must fulfill some sort of obligation in order to love us? Who places this obligation on God? Whoever it is, maybe we should be worshipping him instead. Or perhaps you will say "God's justice" as if God's justice could be stronger or even logically prior to God's love. God's justice demands that God do x,y,z, and then God's love is free to operate. But until that, God's love is hamstrung. Far be it from me to put words in your mouth; I was just trying that possibility on for size. If you have some other explanation for what you mean by saying that God must do something in order to love us, please do explain.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Seeker963, I'm confused. I never claimed that PSA is the only way to atonement, and neither do very many other people, save those who actually hold a rather broad brush view of what 'PSA' actually means.
Dinghy Sailor, the discussion I was in the process of having with Martin - which you apparently jumped in to defend - was whether or not it was necessary for God to be violent and bloody; Martin seemed to me to be saying that bloody violence is necessary (I'm using "bloody" not in a rude sense but in a purely descriptive one). If you want to switch tracks and say something somewhat different, fine, I'm listening.
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Why did you then quote me almost exactly, and make it look like your view? Were you saying that your view is the same as what I'd written? Or did you make a quoting error? In which case, why did you personalise the text?
Because I believe all those things without believing in PSA. My version of atonement theory - a combination of Christus Victor and "moral example" admits to all of those things.
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
That's nothing to do with PSA. That's to do with Jesus' dying on the cross. No matter what theories anyone may have about the mechanisms involved, it's unthinkable that Jesus would have put himself through death, and through such a terrible death, unless it had been absolutely necessary. To suggest otherwise is to suggest either that Jesus didn't have control, or that he was a madman, or some weird gnostic-docetic nonsence.
As I understand PSA, the violent death of Jesus was required by the Father before he would forgive me. (hypothetical "me"). As I understand PSA, I owe God my violent death and nothing less than that would propitiate him. Except the death of his Son; because his Son was perfect by virtue of being divine but also human.
The fact that the Father and the Son are one is not an objection which I can overcome. The reason I cannot overcome this is because I believe that Jesus showed us exactly what God was like. If we have seen Jesus, we have seen the Father. Jesus did not only omit to teach that the way of God was the way of violence but he lived and taught that the way of God is the way of non-violence.
PSA teaches that God approves of and uses violent retributive punishment in his scheme of salvation. I believe that the New Testament teaches us quite clearly that God does not approve of or use violence.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Jesus non-violent? In the temple? Twice? At His return? I wonder who assassinated Ananias and Sapphira?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
i am not sure that the violence is actually required for PSA - the basis of PSA is that the death must be to satisfy the Torah and must do it for me, paying the penalty I owe.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
i am not sure that the violence is actually required for PSA - the basis of PSA is that the death must be to satisfy the Torah and must do it for me, paying the penalty I owe.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
i am not sure that the violence is actually required for PSA - the basis of PSA is that the death must be to satisfy the Torah and must do it for me, paying the penalty I owe.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
OK so it might not be very accurate but I was simply trying to say that PSA didn't need it to be a crucifixion. The detail was man-made - it was the death that was required, not the scourging.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Perhaps the son's blood type is compatible with both the addict and President, but the addict and President aren't compatible with each other. This analogy is beginning to become medically implausible.
Obviously, the Son is a Universal Donor.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Jesus non-violent? In the temple? Twice? At His return? I wonder who assassinated Ananias and Sapphira?
If your interpretation of what God is like is true then, as I said previously, I want to go to hell. Because hell must be better than being in the presence of God. That would be an interesting twist: hell is heaven and heaven is hell.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
i am not sure that the violence is actually required for PSA - the basis of PSA is that the death must be to satisfy the Torah and must do it for me, paying the penalty I owe.
A sort of “non-violent execution”?
I can’t see any way around it. What is “dear” and central to PSA is that God who is angry at sinners, not just at sin, and that God requires that all people be punished. This characterisation of God is my main objection to PSA, so I can’t see a way to agree with it.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
