|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Easter Message : Christ did not die for sin
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Freddy,
Well, the obvious historical fact is that the vast majority of Jesus' teaching was spoken to Jews. It's also a matter of histoprical record that most of what Jesus said was not original but came to be actually contained in the Pirke Aboth (The Sayings of The Fathers), which I have studied. This is a collection of Rabbinic sayings which ascribes various quotes to Rabbi So-and-so and Rabbi This-that-and-the-other. Most oj Jesus' teaching therefore is Jewish for Jews.
The difference was the authority in which Jesus taught it - instead of saying "Rabbi Smith said XYZ', Jesus said 'I say unto you.'
So,, his teaching was already in the Jewish psyche. As far as Christians are concerned, when we are born again, we are grafted into Israel and so whatebver Jesus said applies to us also, unless it is irrelevant to us as Gentiles - i.e circumcision (thank God!) Well I am British!
As far as the abiding thing is concerned, Jesus said if you abide in me you will keep my commandments.
He did not say, If you keep my commandements you will abide in me.
Abide first (faith) then commandments (works).
--------------------
"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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well, the obvious historical fact is that the vast majority of Jesus' teaching was spoken to Jews.
Yes, that's true.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's also a matter of histoprical record that most of what Jesus said was not original but came to be actually contained in the Pirke Aboth (The Sayings of The Fathers), which I have studied.
I can buy that. Is this an orthodox idea?
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So,, his teaching was already in the Jewish psyche. As far as Christians are concerned, when we are born again, we are grafted into Israel and so whatebver Jesus said applies to us
I see how you're going with this. Jesus' words do not apply to us unless we are already saved. Does this really work for you?
Your statement here substantiates what I said above then, which is part of the reason that I think that PSA is so problematic. I said:
quote:
Furthermore, it doesn't take an intellectualist or esoteric interpretation to show that the Bible's central message is that people should believe in and obey God - and that PSA defeats that central message by denying the human ability to do this.
So here you are saying that Jesus' words to this effect do not apply to people before they are saved. How is this not defeating the Bible's central message? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I am waiting for you to say that people have no ability to obey God.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
As far as the abiding thing is concerned, Jesus said if you abide in me you will keep my commandments.
He did not say, If you keep my commandements you will abide in me.
Abide first (faith) then commandments (works).
Are you looking at a Bible when you say this? My version (NKJV) says:
quote:
John 15.10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love.
Does your version reverse these clauses?
[ 20. April 2007, 13:54: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
NIV: If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love
NASB: If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love
ESV: If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love
AV/KJV: If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love
ASV: If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love
Young's Literal: if my commandments ye may keep, ye shall remain in my love
Douay: If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love
New Jerusalem: If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love.
RSV: If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love.
NAB: If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love
I'm starting to see a pattern develop here.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I am saying that the unregenerate man has no desire nor ability to keep the commands of God - it's what we call total depravity. We are dead in trespasses and sins.
As for the abiding and keeping commandments, you are right ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) I misquoted and turned the Scripture around. But then so did you when you said just before your Scripture quote that Jesus said that we abide in Him if we keep His commandments - he did actually say if we keep his commandments we will abide in him - that means, on thinking about it, that we will stay within the Kingdom if we continue to keep the commands (love God and love one another). It does not mean that by doing these things we will gain entry into the Kingdom
Don't forget, under the Old Law the decalogue was given to people already called by, redeemed and covenanted to God.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
That sent me scurrying for my copy of his essay. In it he says "my sins merit ultimate penal suffering and rejection from God's presence" as a summary of his view on justice in PSA. How is that not retributive?
Sorry, I was thinking of a different article by Packer and now that I look at it quickly, it's too complex to speed-read. I may have got confused and remembered someone he was quoting to refute. Apologies if I have cast aspersions on his name!
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I don't think that conservative theologians think that "Jesus taking our punishment is the only thing that happens on the cross". The way I understood the book, the argument is something like "PSA incorporates all the other ideas that other atonement theories hold; it is the one complete theory of atonement". I read some people as thinking that other theories of atonement just confuse the issue and should not be expressed. Is my reading unfair in your view?
I'm not sure about the second part of what you say; the first is nearer. I'm not sure I read it as saying "complete" but "central". Perhaps I read the authors saying that expression of the other models without PSA as a locus is confusing. [/QB]
That seems about as close to agreement as you and I will ever get, I expect! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
As for the abiding and keeping commandments, you are right I misquoted and turned the Scripture around. But then so did you when you said just before your Scripture quote that Jesus said that we abide in Him if we keep His commandments - he did actually say if we keep his commandments we will abide in him - that means, on thinking about it, that we will stay within the Kingdom if we continue to keep the commands (love God and love one another). It does not mean that by doing these things we will gain entry into the Kingdom.
So you still insist on turning it around?
Jesus definitely is saying that by doing these things the listener gains entry to the kingdom of God. Other passages say this even more specifically:
quote:
Matthew 5:20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
Matthew 18:3 “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 21:31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said to Him, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you.
Mark 9:47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire—
John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Revelation 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.
These passages say that a person gains entry only by turning away from evil and doing God's will. Are you saying that these passages are only addressed to the Jews and the saved? I see why this idea is necessary to support PSA, but is it really a legitimate reading of Jesus and the gospel message? I don't think it is.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I am saying that the unregenerate man has no desire nor ability to keep the commands of God - it's what we call total depravity. We are dead in trespasses and sins.
I knew that you would say this sooner or later. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
I agree that without God's help we have no desire or ability to keep His commands. Without Him we can do nothing. But God gives us the means and the ability to hear Him, to believe in Him, and to obey Him in freedom.
PSA's denial of this fundamental biblical assumption is one of my strongest objections to the whole idea.
PSA depends on the assumption that humanity is unable to "satisfy the debt" by repenting and changing our ways. Yet the assumption that we are able to repent and change our ways is central to everything that Jesus says. Not that we ourselves have any power, or that we ourselves can satisfy any debt - but that Jesus is with us and gives us the strength to do His will if we believe in and obey Him. At least that is how I read it.
[ 20. April 2007, 15:57: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I agree that without God's help we have no desire or ability to keep His commands. Without Him we can do nothing. But God gives us the means and the ability to hear Him, to believe in Him, and to obey Him in freedom.
PSA's denial of this fundamental biblical assumption is one of my strongest objections to the whole idea.
PSA depends on the assumption that humanity is unable to "satisfy the debt" by repenting and changing our ways. Yet the assumption that we are able to repent and change our ways is central to everything that Jesus says. Not that we ourselves have any power, or that we ourselves can satisfy any debt - but that Jesus is with us and gives us the strength to do His will if we believe in and obey Him. At least that is how I read it.
I agree - it's called prevenient grace. It is a gift given so that we can respond to the atonement - PSA or otherwise.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I agree - it's called prevenient grace. It is a gift given so that we can respond to the atonement - PSA or otherwise.
Ah, but given to whom? All, or just some?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I believe prevenient grace comes in many ways - it can start with natural revelation - through something insirational - art, music, a landscape for example. It can come through conscience, through a perceieved need of forgiveness. It can come through circumstance - bereavement, loneliness, a birth, a wedding. It can come through the things we 'already know' because God has 'put eternity in our hearts' according to Ecclesiastes and Paul says 'God' power and nature are clearly seen, written on men's hearts so they are without excuse'.
Of course the preaching or communicating of the Gospel is very important - that's the work of the church - because faith comes through the hearing of the word. This is why people will be judged on what they hear over and above what is naturally known. Whenever anyone responds to Christ, it has been common grace, coupled with prevenient grace that has led them to receive saving grace.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
If it is given to all then, yes, this is exactly what I'm looking for here. A God-given ability to respond to God's will.
Of course, then, if people actually can hear God, repent, and reform, then why wouldn't this be the basis of their salvation - as Christ says it is?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Just a little more about prevenient grace. According to Wikipedia:
quote:
The United Methodist Book of Discipline (2004) defines prevenient grace as, "...the divine love that surrounds all humanity and precedes any and all of our conscious impulses. This grace prompts our first wish to please God, our first glimmer of understanding concerning God's will, and our 'first slight transient conviction' of having sinned against God. God's grace also awakens in us an earnest longing for deliverance from sin and death and moves us toward repentance and faith."
I agree that this is an essential concept.
My own denomination has a similar device, called "remains" in the Bible. It is not simply the divine love surrounding all individuals, but the effect of any encounter whatsoever with love and goodness. God's love enters into any such encounter - from birth and even before - and it is recorded in a person's inner memory, where it remains. These remains are God-given and accumulate to form the basis from which everyone can recognize and respond to God.
In any case, what it means is that people DO have the ability, from God, to hear Him, recognize Him, believe in Him, and obey Him - if we so choose - even though we have no power whatsoever of our own.
To my mind, prevenient grace does solve the problem that, according to PSA doctrine, necessitates the exclusion of human will and actions from the salvation process. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Salvation, Freddy, starts - justification - and ends - glorification - with Jesus. The works in the middle - sanctification - are His too. NOTHING to do with us. We don't exist. We can't, except in, as His resurrected body, dissolved in His blood, in communion. We couldn't POSSIBLY enter in to the Father's otherwise lethal presence.
And I'm sorry, Seeker and DOD - I found this and my inadequacy and affliction all very depressing a couple of nights ago. Very. I still perceive a spirit of anti-Christ here, and not just in me, but that would be the case in such a forum.
To insist on anything but PSA is another gospel, another Christ and anti-Christ, if I didn't make myself clear. And of course I can't to those who won't and can't hear it from Paul or Isaiah or the Spirit of Truth through any other voice.
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins ... according to the will of our God and Father.
I imagine this breaks several rules of purgatory if one so desires. If one chooses to be that illiberally narrow in one's interpretation.
[ 21. April 2007, 11:34: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dobbo
Shipmate
# 5850
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ponty'n'pop:
What Mousethief said above.
cf: "I played the violin for my grandmother"
Your example is not the best but I will use it in the first place
That was nice of the grandson playing as a substitute because of the grandmothers arthritis.
A better one is anyone in the world would understand in a team came one player coming on "for" another.
Even in the Greek there are a number of words translated for - one being anti from which many English words are derived
Oxford English Dictionary
Strongs 473 Anti
So to use the example for to defend your case is not conclusive.
--------------------
I'm holding out for Grace......, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity
Bono
Posts: 395 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Salvation, Freddy, starts - justification - and ends - glorification - with Jesus. The works in the middle - sanctification - are His too. NOTHING to do with us. We don't exist. We can't, except in, as His resurrected body, dissolved in His blood, in communion. We couldn't POSSIBLY enter in to the Father's otherwise lethal presence.
Then you can't escape predestination, Martin.
Not that I don't agree with where you are coming from. God is all. We are nothing.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
To insist on anything but PSA is another gospel, another Christ and anti-Christ, if I didn't make myself clear.
How do you know that PSA is not the anti-Christ? I see it as a willful perversion of biblical teaching - taking just enough of the gospel to justify itself, but wholly vitiating the fundamental teachings of religion - that God is love and that we are to love and obey Him in return.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And of course I can't to those who won't and can't hear it from Paul or Isaiah or the Spirit of Truth through any other voice.
How do you know that it is not you who are twisting a few choice phrases from Paul and Isaiah? Would you even take the time to read those messages in context, in comparison with the rest of the Bible, and reconciling them with the words of Christ?
There is no hurry here. We have whole lifetimes to think about this. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The Spirit knows Freddy. I know by the Spirit. It's quite simple mate. A fallen, broken, depraved, afflicted, filthy, vile, idolatrous, blasphemous, murderous, adulterous, thieving, lying, covetous, vomit and shit and blood stained sinner like me. That's what such sinners as we know. That's what the Spirit has given us to know. It's not transferable Freddy. You can't know it. I can. You haven't sinned enough mate. And I don't believe in reincarnation beyond once at most. And don't you DARE tell me Jesus DIDN'T die for my sins.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The Spirit knows Freddy. I know by the Spirit. It's quite simple mate.
I do believe that anything true that we know comes to us by the Spirit.
But the Spirit does not contradict the Bible. What a number of us are trying to demonstrate is that we think that PSA does.
We are discussing the evidence - and having fun doing it, I think. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What, Jesus DIDN'T die for my sins? That's what the bible says? OK mate. Any thing you say.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What, Jesus DIDN'T die for my sins? That's what the bible says? OK mate. Any thing you say.
Yes Jesus did die. He did die to overcome the power of sin. He died for your sake. Because of His death you are able to believe in Him and obey Him.
He did not die in your place as a payment to God or the devil for the price of your soul, or to satisfy God's wrath, or to satisfy justice. His merit is not imputed to you merely because of your faith in Him.
His grace is that He took on your sins, overcame them, and that He gives you the power therefore to battle them in your own life. In fact He is the one who fights for you.
So your task in life is to believe in Him and obey Him, turning away from evil in your life. You can do this because God gives you this capacity, despite the fact that you are, as to your own inherent power and desires, all the things that you described above.
PSA, on the other hand, tells you that you cannot resist evil, and that this isn't even the point. It tells you that you are saved while you are still a sinner, and that after this you will be given the power to resist evil. It implies that the desire to sin will be miraculously removed from you without effort on your part. It excuses your backslidings.
PSA also tells you that the Author of all of this is angry, and even murderous. He is somehow propitiated by death and blood. Yet you are to love and trust Him. Or is it only Jesus?
And is your God the same person as your Savior? PSA creates a clear separation between the two - except to the extent that we see it as God Himself taking His own punishment to pay to Himself the debt for us. Which works, I guess, but not very well, in my opinion.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dobbo
Shipmate
# 5850
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
One thing he did draw out is that in the tomb is that it was not a coincidence that the tomb had two angels (Luke 24 v 4) and linked it with the mercy seat of old - which I found interesting from someone so publicly against PSA.
Yes Dobbo, but affirming this connection does not necessarily bring us to PSA, which Alison demonstrates in this article: An atonement update
quote:
You can tell that that was how it was read because in John’s Gospel immediately after this, at the resurrection, we are transferred to the garden. We are back to the “first day” and we are in “the garden”. Peter and John come to look, then Mary Magdalene comes in. What does she see? Two angels! And where are the angels sitting? One at the head and one at the foot of a space that is open because the stone has been rolled away. What is this space? This is the Holy of Holies. This is the mercy seat, with the Cherubim present.
Having read the article by Allison , I felt there were a number of issues that he suggested were totally unscriptural
quote:
Rather than invoke the idea of sacrifice as something God demands of us
present yourselves living sacrafices Romans 12 v 1
I think demands is put strongly - God suggests that it is our reasonable service.
--------------------
I'm holding out for Grace......, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity
Bono
Posts: 395 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
The website of Fulcrum has published a very long article by Tom Wright in response to recent debates about atonement theory: The Cross and the Caricatures
The article will probably ruffle many feathers on both 'sides' of the theological spectrum.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
The website of Fulcrum has published a very long article by Tom Wright in response to recent debates about atonement theory: The Cross and the Caricatures
The article will probably ruffle many feathers on both 'sides' of the theological spectrum.
This is a great article. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. I plan to read it carefully over lunch.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
The article will probably ruffle many feathers on both 'sides' of the theological spectrum.
He certainly takes Jeffrey John to task.
I like his interest in reconciling thoughts about the effect of the cross with the actual gospel account and Jesus' recorded statements about it.
That said, he doesn't actually do this - but he admits that little along these lines can be done in a brief (20 page) article.
He spent most of the article railing against JJ's "caricature" of PSA - calling the problems with the caricature "obvious" to those who framed the atonement theories, and talking about a more nuanced approach.
I read what he said carefully, and appreciated his understanding of the biblical concept of "wrath" and how it is actually consistent with "love." I also liked how he started to examine Isaiah 53.
Still, I was left thinking that the caricature is closer to the actual doctrine than he allowed.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Still, I was left thinking that the caricature is closer to the actual doctrine than he allowed.
That was pretty much my impression. Jeffrey John may have been attacking a caricature of what Wright believes but it appears to be a caricature which seems fairly widespread and, inasmuch as it is preached as 'the glorious heart of the Gospel' ought really to be criticised.
I had the peculiar impression that the article was really about the internal politics of the evangelical wing of the Church of England so PSA had to be upheld against liberals like Jeffrey John and denounced against the Oak Hill lot. Actually I darkly suspect that the controversy is, in large part, about the internal politics of the evangelical wing of the Church of England.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Callan:
I had the peculiar impression that the article was really about the internal politics of the evangelical wing of the Church of England so PSA had to be upheld against liberals like Jeffrey John and denounced against the Oak Hill lot. Actually I darkly suspect that the controversy is, in large part, about the internal politics of the evangelical wing of the Church of England.
It pains me to say it, because I have a lot of time for +Tom, but it seemed that way to me, too. He seemed to rail against Jeffrey John, but for what he imagined were JJs underlying assumptions, rather than what he had actually said. Furthermore, later in his article, he seems to offer explicit support for the central model of atonement being Christus Victor, surely something thst JJ would agree with. This all sounds remarkably like the "usual suspects" type of argument, JJ is the sort of person who would be likely to support liberal interpretations, so let's judge him on that perception, rather than on what he actually said. This is even more astonishing as he then proceeds to reaffirm his support for Steve Chalke, who was somewhat more pointed in his condemnation of PSA ("cosmic child abuse", anyone?), but, of course, he is one of us. Now I happen to agree with both Chalke and John, but it does seem that there are double standards at work here.
Likewise, his defence of PSA sounded awfully like an attempt to redifine the term in such a way as to keep the conservatives who are so wedded to the penal language, whilst deflecting away God's wrath from sinners and on to sin. I find it difficult to see how one can meanigfully say that sin itself (as opposed to sinners) can be punished. Now I, of course, am in sympathy with his efforts here, but would it not be better to dump the penal language altogether, as misleading and unhelpful?
The other bit of the article which I thought was, frankly, nonsensical, was his argument that free forgiveness somehow devalues the seriousness of sin. If that were the case, then Gee Walker would be guilty of complicity in the sin of her son's killers. But of course, this is nonesense, and, it seems to me, about as far from Kingdom values as it is possible to get. Free forgiveness doesn't make the sin less heinous, it merely magnifies the worth of the forgiver. Part of what Jesus was doing on the cross, ISTM, was breaking the desire to punish, the retributive principle. After all, If the Son of God can say to his murderers, "Father, forgive them," then is there any sin beyond God's freely available, undeserved, outrageous grace?
I find all this very disheartening. I met +Tom when he was Dean of Lichfield, and was deeply impressed, not so much by his fearsome intellect, but by his kindly humanity and humility. In general, in so far as I can undertand them, I am in sympathy with his teaching. I doubt very much that he will lose much sleep over it, but I am deeply disappointed in his conduct over this issue.
--------------------
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
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
It could also be about theology, my friends! The theology of the atonement has always been a major debating point among Christians, and it would be sad indeed if the debate were only thought to interest evangelicals. Substitution and propitiation/expiation/ hilasterion - though glibly dismissed by some earlier in the thread - are hinge concepts in our understanding of atonement theology, and all Tom is trying to do is tease out the nuances. I would say that there is a spectrum of views on the matter, which deserve careful scrutiny.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
I've been merely lurking until now, assuming that I had no opinion, but actually I do. The lawyer William Stringfellow did not agree with sermons or remarks calling the crucifixion a miscarriage of justice and bemoaning the execution of an innocent man. He wrote that Jesus was guilty as charged, and that His mission of conquering death brought Him inevitably into a cosmic confrontation with the two powerful institutions in that society, both Israel and Rome. Once this is pointed out, it seems obvious, and it is less mystifying how Jesus knew that it would happen.
Perhaps this explanation is consistent enough with His dying to atone for our sins, yet it doesn't exactly imply it.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mystery of Faith
Shipmate
# 12176
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
It could also be about theology, my friends! The theology of the atonement has always been a major debating point among Christians, and it would be sad indeed if the debate were only thought to interest evangelicals. Substitution and propitiation/expiation/ hilasterion - though glibly dismissed by some earlier in the thread - are hinge concepts in our understanding of atonement theology, and all Tom is trying to do is tease out the nuances. I would say that there is a spectrum of views on the matter, which deserve careful scrutiny.
I would agree it is of course about theology and of course debates around atonement are complicated and go way back into Christian history. It's just a shame that its a type of theology that rather conveniently manages to get Steve Chalke off the hook in the same article in which Jeffrey John is taken to task at length and in a very high-handed way. I particularly love the way he explains that he had to phone Steve up to "clarify Steve's position" (Conversation must have gone something like "Hey Steve, I've got this cunning wheeze to get you out of all that trouble about the cosmic child abuse comment and at the same time give that wishy-washy liberal a piece of my SO great intellect. So Steve Just say 'I meant A" when I ask you, OK?")
No doubt he also had a good theological chat with JJ too (not), just forgot to mention it.
Shame on +Tom
Posts: 101 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
The other bit of the article which I thought was, frankly, nonsensical, was his argument that free forgiveness somehow devalues the seriousness of sin. If that were the case, then Gee Walker would be guilty of complicity in the sin of her son's killers. But of course, this is nonesense, and, it seems to me, about as far from Kingdom values as it is possible to get. Free forgiveness doesn't make the sin less heinous, it merely magnifies the worth of the forgiver. Part of what Jesus was doing on the cross, ISTM, was breaking the desire to punish, the retributive principle. After all, If the Son of God can say to his murderers, "Father, forgive them," then is there any sin beyond God's freely available, undeserved, outrageous grace?
Actually the whole point of forgiveness is that there is something genuinely wrong to forgive. When JPII went to see that bloke who tried to gun him down he wasn't saying that attempting to murder someone was a thing indifferent, he was saying that it was something very bad indeed but that God calls us to forgive freely.
Presumably, if he had been an Anglican evangelical bishop, he would have had to bump off Cardinal Ratzinger as a vicarious sacrifice before he could freely forgive Mehmet Ali Agca.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Presumably, if he had been an Anglican evangelical bishop, he would have had to bump off Cardinal Ratzinger as a vicarious sacrifice before he could freely forgive Mehmet Ali Agca.
Absolutely priceless, Callan
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
I had mixed feelings about +Tom's piece. I'm quite a fan of N T Wright/Fulcrum/Open Evangelicalism and, until recently, was part of Newfrontiers which is quite boldly siding with the 'ultra conservatives'. Since then I've broadened out into a wider, deeper theological stream although am pretty conservative about sexual ethics and pro female ordination etc...
My concern was with the tangible lack of grace with which +Durham wrote his piece. I like to think I'm pretty nuanced theologically and felt a positive 'zing' when I read JJ's piece. I agree that the 'caricature' which +Tom mocks is a lot closer to the reality of the Newfrontiers/Word Alive crowd than he admits...
I've not read Chalke's book, but the few quotes I've heard/read also resonate with my own theology. Also I owe a great debt to N T Wright whose work has helped reshape and broaden my perspective.
I, personally, think the specific 'system' of Penal Substitution is too mired with duff thinking to be redeemed. NOT that I don't agree with the Isaianic-servant theme, and the punitive dimension of the Cross (after all, it is a Roman CROSS we're talking about...). It's just that I think the doctrine of PS is too attached to the quest to detail every little dynamic and mechanism involved with the atonement.
Christus Victor involves such a wider theological perspective and the Eucharistic context (as +Tom points out) moves the realm of atonement from purely 'logical' to 'experiential' as well.
So A+ for theology from +Durham, C- for delivery.
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I would say that there is a spectrum of views on the matter, which deserve careful scrutiny.
Isn't this an unfortunate thing to say in the light of recent events?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
Don't get your drift. If you believe, as I do, that there is a huge difference between the views that JJ broadcast (the transcript of which I have in front of me), the views of Steve Chalke, and the views of Ovey et al., then it's the theology we should be debating, not the personalities. All I see on this thread is people taking sides on whether they support JJ or not, as though there were something talismanic about that. All I see on the ultra conservative threads on other blogs is a mirror image of that in relation to Steve Chalke. That's no way for us to explore the theological issues.
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Don't get your drift. If you believe, as I do, that there is a huge difference between the views that JJ broadcast (the transcript of which I have in front of me), the views of Steve Chalke, and the views of Ovey et al., then it's the theology we should be debating, not the personalities. All I see on this thread is people taking sides on whether they support JJ or not, as though there were something talismanic about that. All I see on the ultra conservative threads on other blogs is a mirror image of that in relation to Steve Chalke. That's no way for us to explore the theological issues.
If that is really the case, then why were people queueing up to condemn JJ before they had even heard what he had to say. Of course, he wasn't pushing the traditional evangelical line, but then neither was Chalke in his book, yet one gets condemned and the other gets commended for saying much the same thing. I'm all for reasoned theological debate, but ISTM that +Tom's article doesn't qualify as being all that reasoned.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mystery of Faith
Shipmate
# 12176
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Don't get your drift.
I think "the drift" might have something to do with comments such as these quoted at Spring Harvest after having read a Daily Telegraph article:
"Jeffrey John ... is saying that the cross is not about anger or wrath or sin or atonement, but only about God's unconditional love. There is, he says, nothing to understand in the cross which is anything to do with sacrifice or Jesus dying for our sins – and we say No. You've got it wrong."
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
That's no way for us to explore the theological issues.
Posts: 101 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Pete173:
quote:
All I see on this thread is people taking sides on whether they support JJ or not, as though there were something talismanic about that.
Yeah well, your reputation for reading for comprehension has not exactly shot up over the last couple of weeks, Father. The OP is, of course, about Fr. John's interpretation of the atonement but if you actually bother to read stuff before commenting (I generally find this helps, decadent liberal that I am) you may actually notice that there are simply pages and pages where Fr. John's talk is not alluded to.
Frankly the talismanic stuff going on here is evangelical bishops waving their willies at the faithful so as not to be outflanked on the right by the Oak Hill mafia. Whilst I'm not an unqualified admirer of Fr. Wright I do think he had a point when he observed that evangelicals have lost touch with the Holy Scriptures. Possibly when evangelicalism became the ecclesiastical equivalent of New Labour - all about briefing against your colleagues and engaging in a kind of boo-hooray politics against the nasty liberals.
--------------------
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
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
Well, if you want to believe all the stuff that Bartley sticks out on his self-publicist website, you can do so. I still maintain that anyone producing the guff that JJ did before Easter is fair game for a pop at their opinions. I read the transcript, once we'd managed to extract it by the backdoor of the Beeb, and it changed my view of what JJ said not one whit. If you think it commends the Christian faith to do "God's a psychopath" during Holy Week, so be it. For me, it falls into the category of "let's make Jesus and the Christian church a laughing stock before Easter again, like we do every year." And since the Beeb decided to give the broadcast a puff on the Today programme on the morning before it went out, maybe they're a little bit less than honest too when they come up all indignant about people criticising the Lent talk. If anyone (whoever they are) wants to stick the knife into traditional Christian belief, there's bound to be comeback. That's how it works.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mystery of Faith
Shipmate
# 12176
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Well, if you want to believe all the stuff that Bartley sticks out on his self-publicist website, you can do so.
Not sure if this barbed comment was aimed at me but I got my quote from some evangelical site and not Ekklesia.
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I still maintain that anyone producing the guff that JJ did before Easter is fair game for a pop at their opinions
I repeat what you said earlier: "That's no way for us to explore the theological issues."
As I have posted on other threads its the likes of JJ that have helped people like me who were previously in the un-faithed majority in this country realise that there's more than one way to interpret scripture and that Christianity is a living faith and theology and helped me to come towards faith and find God.
It's the kind of dogmatic and condemnatory attitude exemplified in your above post that kept me away for so long.
Good night +Pete.
Posts: 101 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Oh bless.
I've not actually read the stuff on Bartley's website. Which adds to my suspicion that this is a matter of willy waving.
If the Gormenghast Herald phoned me up and asked me to comment on the remarks of one of my fellow clergy I would take the effort to phone him or her up to establish what had been said. Clearly my chances of becoming an evangelical bishop are slim indeed.
[x-posted with Mystery of Faith]
[ 23. April 2007, 23:26: 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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I still maintain that anyone producing the guff that JJ did before Easter is fair game for a pop at their opinions. I read the transcript, once we'd managed to extract it by the backdoor of the Beeb, and it changed my view of what JJ said not one whit. If you think it commends the Christian faith to do "God's a psychopath" during Holy Week, so be it. For me, it falls into the category of "let's make Jesus and the Christian church a laughing stock before Easter again, like we do every year." And since the Beeb decided to give the broadcast a puff on the Today programme on the morning before it went out, maybe they're a little bit less than honest too when they come up all indignant about people criticising the Lent talk. If anyone (whoever they are) wants to stick the knife into traditional Christian belief, there's bound to be comeback. That's how it works.
Are you sure you've got that transcript? My reading of JJ's talk was that he was at pains to point out precisely that God is not a psychopath, (or even a cosmic child abuser) despite the apparent desire of some of His followers to portray Him as such. Rather He is the one who freely forgives, without preconditions, He is the one who laid down His life to effect our deliverance. Do you really consider such a message to be inappropriate for Holy Week?
Do you really feel that such a message brings the Gospel into disrepute? Do you really belive that to characterise JJs talk as "guff" in any way progresses the reasoned theological debate which you say you want?
--------------------
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
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mystery of Faith:
It's just a shame that its a type of theology that rather conveniently manages to get Steve Chalke off the hook in the same article in which Jeffrey John is taken to task at length and in a very high-handed way. I particularly love the way he explains that he had to phone Steve up to "clarify Steve's position"
The way I read this part of Tom Wright's piece was that his conversation with Steve Chalke began before Chalke's book was even published. The passage which led to the furore over Steve's book was open to more than one interpretation and Tom had read it one way in the light of the conversation he had had without being particularly alert to the ambiguity. When the Oak Hill book was published, he went back and looked again at the passage at issue more carefully, identified the ambiguity and contacted Steve Chalke to find out which of the possible meanings he had intended.
I think, by contrast, he did not find any ambiguity in Jeffrey John's talk - nor when he had heard it in full and seen the transcript did he what he had been shown by the (Sunday?) Telegraph seriously misrepresented Jeffrey John's talk in that respect.
In short ISTM the Tom Wright thinks that Steve Chalke believes in an understanding of PSA that broadly matches Tom Wright's whereas he thinks that Jeffrey John doesn't believe in even that kind of PSA, and he thinks that Jeffrey John is dismissing the whole idea of PSA and a lot else which goes with it on the basis of a version of PSA which Tom Wright doesn't believe in himself and views as a caricature of what PSA is really about - in other words, a straw man.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mystery of Faith
Shipmate
# 12176
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Mystery of Faith:
It's just a shame that its a type of theology that rather conveniently manages to get Steve Chalke off the hook in the same article in which Jeffrey John is taken to task at length and in a very high-handed way. I particularly love the way he explains that he had to phone Steve up to "clarify Steve's position"
The way I read this part of Tom Wright's piece was that his conversation with Steve Chalke began before Chalke's book was even published. The passage which led to the furore over Steve's book was open to more than one interpretation and Tom had read it one way in the light of the conversation he had had without being particularly alert to the ambiguity. When the Oak Hill book was published, he went back and looked again at the passage at issue more carefully, identified the ambiguity and contacted Steve Chalke to find out which of the possible meanings he had intended.
I think, by contrast, he did not find any ambiguity in Jeffrey John's talk - nor when he had heard it in full and seen the transcript did he what he had been shown by the (Sunday?) Telegraph seriously misrepresented Jeffrey John's talk in that respect.
In short ISTM the Tom Wright thinks that Steve Chalke believes in an understanding of PSA that broadly matches Tom Wright's whereas he thinks that Jeffrey John doesn't believe in even that kind of PSA, and he thinks that Jeffrey John is dismissing the whole idea of PSA and a lot else which goes with it on the basis of a version of PSA which Tom Wright doesn't believe in himself and views as a caricature of what PSA is really about - in other words, a straw man.
I can see what +Tom wrote I just find it a mite convenient. Having read +Tom's article, the text of JJ's article and the Chalke book in the past(which at the end of the day are all pitched for different audiences) and clearly given there was a pre-existing friendship/contact or whatever with Chalke then its possible that you're right and that it is as straight forward as that. What is slightly irritating, however, is that +Tom treats what JJ has said as though this is the pinnacle of his theological argument rather than a short, punchy talk for a secular radio station followed up after a savaging by three bishops by some hastily put together letter in Church Tmes.
Even though the talk was clearly written in a secular-friendly style, what is said can still be interpreted in many different ways.
JJ wrote a book on Miracles a few years back where he starts out by caricaturing two religious teachers he had experience of, one who was (for want of a better description) a biblical literalist the other a biblical reductionist. These were clear caricatures drawn that way to make a point which I thought was very effective, lively and encouraged thought on the part of an exploring lay person reading it. It's his style.
It strikes me that +Tom has basically chosen to interpret and read into the body of what JJ wrote on this occasion, a particular set of messages when others can be taken. Personally I find that disappointing and unhelpful and the whole concept of a caricature PSA and a real PSA seems to me to have a hint of a desperate desire to keep the whole thing at the forefront of evangelical atonement thinking rather than accepting it as one of a range of ways of interpreting the Passion which doesn't work for some of us.
Though I could be wrong and equally I don't want to dredge up the same things that have been discussed round and round for the last 14 pages!
Posts: 101 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
If you think it commends the Christian faith to do "God's a psychopath" during Holy Week, so be it. For me, it falls into the category of "let's make Jesus and the Christian church a laughing stock before Easter again, like we do every year."
No doubt many of the Temple hierarchy thought it highly inappropriate for a Galilean upstart to attack the money changers, making God's covenant people a laughing stock just before Passover. Personally, however, I think that there is a venerable tradition amongst God's People of not being afraid of public self-criticism.
And you don't know whether anyone was convinced to give the Church another go after hearing Fr John - perhaps thinking, 'oh, well if that understanding of God is not an essential part of Christianity, perhaps I was hasty in rejecting the faith'. Neither do I. But someone might have done. And if that happened, it was all worthwhile. Joy in heaven, and all that.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
[QUOTE]
In short ISTM the Tom Wright thinks that Steve Chalke believes in an understanding of PSA that broadly matches Tom Wright's whereas he thinks that Jeffrey John doesn't believe in even that kind of PSA, and he thinks that Jeffrey John is dismissing the whole idea of PSA and a lot else which goes with it on the basis of a version of PSA which Tom Wright doesn't believe in himself and views as a caricature of what PSA is really about - in other words, a straw man.
Well, I might agree that it is a straw man, but for the fact that it is the "straw man" version of PSA, ie that sinners are under God's judgement, rather than +Tom's view that it is sin itself, that is held by the great majority of those who see PSA as central to the Gospel. You don't need to go to "sinners in the hands of an angry God" to find that such sentiments are alive and well in at least a subset of modern evos. If +Tom is really concerned with the understanding of the man in the street (and I'm sure he is), why was he lining up against a presentation of the Gospel which, though not traditionally evangelical, is at least thoroughly theologically orthodox. Would a better response not have been to say, "many evangelicals would have differences with this presentation, but it is a healthy contribution to the debate." As it is, he gives the impression that he is more interested in keeping the lunatic right happy at the expense of those who would be willing, possibly, to join the church were it not for the attitudes so accurately caricatured by the good Dean.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
You don't need to go to "sinners in the hands of an angry God" to find that such sentiments are alive and well in at least a subset of modern evos.
We get this in Thule Central most Sundays. I have passed the point where I find the 'God punished Jesus' merely one-dimensional, and 'PSA=The Gospel' frankly unbiblical. I found JJ's Lent talk (Lent, for pity's sake - it comes just before Easter - when else are you going to hear a Lent talk?) a refreshing counter-balance.
What concerns me most at the moment is that my kids are starting pick up the characture - because they're only 7 and 9 it's difficult for them to feel any of the nuances in the message they're getting. The idea that I'd punish the one for the crime of the other is alien to them, and frankly, I'd like it to stay that way.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What concerns me most at the moment is that my kids are starting pick up the characture - because they're only 7 and 9 it's difficult for them to feel any of the nuances in the message they're getting. The idea that I'd punish the one for the crime of the other is alien to them, and frankly, I'd like it to stay that way.
I grew up hearing PSA disapproved of in very strong terms. I never understood what it was that was being criticized. It wasn't until I was away at college and fell in with a bunch of evangelical friends that I was exposed to the nuances.
It was a shock when I realized that what we were talking about was this doctrine that I had only heard disapproving caricatures of. I'm not sure how I would have responded to hearing it the other way around.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It was a shock when I realized that what we were talking about was this doctrine that I had only heard disapproving caricatures of. I'm not sure how I would have responded to hearing it the other way around.
It's difficult, isn't it? Rather like the physics stuff we get taught as kids, then move up a level to discover that everything we'd been previously taught was a gross caricature of what we were learning now.
The Easter Message (harking back to the dim and distant OP) is that Christ did indeed die for our sins - something that both +Pete and Jeffery John ascribe to - but I'm left wondering, like other posters, if the caricature of PSA is so difficult to get away from, that it should be set aside except for brainy swots who go to vicar factories.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
This rather entertaining discussion of PSA by l'autre Dr Williams seems to indicate that Chalke is guilty of the same 'errors' that John is guilty of. Whilst I disagree with Dr Williams' theology he is a perfectly competent exegete. The essay by Chalke he discusses is here, should people want to check it. There doesn't seem to be a word that Jeffrey John would disagree with. If Jeffrey John was talking guff then so is Steve Chalke. (In point of fact, btw, Dr Williams is entirely correct that the Holy Saint of God, Anselm of Canterbury did not teach PSA.) It does rather make m'lord Bishop look rather less than ingenuous, it must be said.
The other point that occurs to me is that when patristic writers talk about Christ taking our punishment one ought to be cautious of assuming that what they mean is PSA, because the fathers regarded corporeal death as the punishment for sin and Christ underwent corporeal death. I think that this is certainly compatible with PSA but it is not necessarily PSA, if you see what I mean.
--------------------
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
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The Easter Message (harking back to the dim and distant OP) is that Christ did indeed die for our sins
No, the Easter Message is 'He is Risen!'
I'm prepared to sign up to 'Christ died for our sins', although I think the phrase is prone to mislead. But note that the credal formulation is 'for us [men] and for our salvation'. Christ's life and death is positive in its effect - it saves us* - it is not about restoring some balance of sin and justice.
quote:
but I'm left wondering, like other posters, if the caricature of PSA is so difficult to get away from, that it should be set aside except for brainy swots who go to vicar factories.
Well, last year I ran a parish group on Christian doctrine. It was attended by very few 'brainy swots', but people said they enjoyed the session on atonement. So, if you don't mind, I'll ignore your advice and continue making available to the holy People of God the resources to articulate and think about the faith we share, which is not the property of some elite 'vicar factory' trained class, but the common inheritance by right of the baptised.
*Which, in the most classical understandings, means more than 'putting right the Fall'.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The Easter Message (harking back to the dim and distant OP) is that Christ did indeed die for our sins
No, the Easter Message is 'He is Risen!'
Quite. But in context for this particular thread, the Torygraph made up a headline which JJ would disagree with. No news there.
quote:
quote:
but I'm left wondering, like other posters, if the caricature of PSA is so difficult to get away from, that it should be set aside except for brainy swots who go to vicar factories.
Well, last year I ran a parish group on Christian doctrine. It was attended by very few 'brainy swots', but people said they enjoyed the session on atonement. So, if you don't mind, I'll ignore your advice and continue making available to the holy People of God the resources to articulate and think about the faith we share, which is not the property of some elite 'vicar factory' trained class, but the common inheritance by right of the baptised.
I don't think I was advising any such thing: just suggesting that the caricature is so closely associated with the nuanced theology (and having read +Wright's Fulcrum piece, almost indistinguishable from), that for those of us who get the heebie-jeebies from badly-taught PSA, it may as well stay in the seminaries.
Possibly until someone can explain it properly.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Oh, I'm anti-PSA. I just think we should talk about the atonement.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
