|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Easter Message : Christ did not die for sin
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I am convinced of PSA from Scripture, but the reason I think it has caught on is because people can understand it: all of this talk about Jesus showing unconditional love by dying and turning death inside out etc just doesn't make sense to people.
Jesus turning death inside-out not making sense? ![[Confused]](confused.gif) Isn’t this one of His most basic messages?
quote:
Matthew 10:39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.
Matthew 16:25 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.
Mark 8:35 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it.
Luke 9:24 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it.
Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.
John 12:25 He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.
Luke 17:33 Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.
Revelation 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.
Jesus fits His own death into this same paradigm, saying that His death was about new life in the same sense as the above passages:
quote:
John 10:17 “I lay down My life that I may take it again."
John 12:24 "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain."
This is therefore the context of His statements about laying down His life:
quote:
John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.
John 10:15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.
John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.
This is part of Jesus’ overall teaching that benefits come from sacrificing what you love in favor of more important things – so that what has been last may become first:
quote:
Mark 10:29 So Jesus answered and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel’s, 30 who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time—houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions—and in the age to come, eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”
Another way to say this is that Jesus taught that we should value heavenly life and heavenly treasure, in preference to earthly life and earthly treasure:
quote:
Luke 12:23 Life is more than food, and the body is more than clothing.
John 6:27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
Matthew 6:19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.
Luke 12:21 “So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.”
Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”
These are the fundamental messages of the Gospels. Jesus is all about overturning the human obsession with “this world” and its dominance in our thinking:
quote:
Matthew 13:22 Now he who received seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful.
John 8:23 And He said to them, “You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
John 14:30 I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me.
John 18:36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”
Jesus came to overcome the “ruler of this world”, that is, He came to take way the power of worldly things in human minds:
quote:
John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.
John 16:8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
So by giving up His earthly life, Jesus overcame the power that valued only the things of this world. This is brought together and summarized in John 12:
quote:
John 12.23 But Jesus answered them, saying, “The hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified. 24 Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain. 25 He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also. If anyone serves Me, him My Father will honor.
27 “Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save Me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour…
31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.”
There is nothing especially hard to understand about “turning death inside-out.” It just means that He wishes us to value heavenly things more than worldly ones. He modeled this for us in a way that was so powerful that it overcame the demonic forces that bind human minds in the chains of worldly desires.
This Christus Victor model is consistent with the whole Bible message, and its application in people's lives is all about the most simple of all religious messages - believe in God and do His will. Cease from evil, learn to do well.
My problem with PSA is that it seems to me to turn all of this on its head.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Leprechaun
I remember once being in a discussion with an avowed atheist with a friend who was a more liberal Christian than I.
The conversation went like this:
Atheist: Why does Jesus dying matter?
Christian: It sets is free from the power of death.
Atheist: how?
Christian: by taking death in our place.
Leprechaun (whispering): er..., about 30 seconds ago, you didn't believe in that, what happened?
Christian: It's just easier to explain that way.
So, how does Jesus death bring us "at-one-ness" with God, in terms a normal non-religious person can understand?
Ah, sorry, my bad. I think I see what you are saying now.
Well, firstly, I don't think your liberal friend, in saying that Christ died in his place, was necessarily embracing PSA. The destinctive, and, to me, problematic feature of PSA is not that Christ died in my place. I know he did that, though I probably wouldn't use that precise terminology, because it carries with it quite a bit of baggage. The bit that I have a problem with is that this death was a punishment, exacted, of an albeit willing, but nonetheless innocent, victim.
I really think there is quite a bit of room here for a coherent and simple non-PSA account of what the purpose of the cross is. OK! Here goes! (deep breath)
"As part of a fallen universe, we are "infected" if you like, with the disease of mortality. We all know that, as we get older, we start to break down, more and more. Paul calls this process "the law of sin and death". When Jesus died, he subjected Himself to this law. But that wasn't the end. His bursting back to life on Easter morning shows that this law wasn't as powerful as God's love. It's a bit as if he had a virus, and, having defeated this virus, His body now contains the antibodies which allow others to overcome the infection, too. So, if we join ourselves to Him, we share in His resurrection here and now (transformation in this life, freedom from destructive behaviour patterns, etc) and, at death, our transformation will be completed and we will be given a new and perfect spiritual body, which, unlike our current one, will not be subject to decay, and so we can live in communion with him forever."
That's a bit rough and ready, but it's a pattern that I sometimes use as a basis for trying to explain something of how I believe the Atonement "works". Of course, it's only an analogy, and we need to be careful we don't push it too far, but I've found that most people can understand it.
Anyway, have a happy and blessed Easter. Christ is risen! Alleluia!
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I don't think Christ died in my place. I reject both the penal and the substitutionary.
Certainly he died FOR me, and in a sense BECAUSE OF me -- the scriptures on this are quite plain.
If anything it's the simplicity of PSA that makes it suspect. The trinity is not simple. The incarnation is not simple. Should the atonement then be simple? It is to laugh.
Certainly the atonment has to do with the nature of the relationship between sin and death. Scripturally they are two sides of the same coin. By one man sin entered the world, and through sin, death. And so forth. By dying and rising, Christ destroyed death, and therefore destroyed sin. It's kind of murky, but I expect it to be a little murky. Anything that's too easy to understand wouldn't be God, it would be a creation of man. Like PSA.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by riverfalls:
It shows what a sick and peverse world we live in when something as vile as this man gets head line news.
What? Where did that come from? Which man? Jeffrey John? Do you think he is vile just because he is gay? I thinktht belings on nother thread.
Or were you talking about someone else?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mystery of Faith
Shipmate
# 12176
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by riverfalls:
It shows what a sick and peverse world we live in when something as vile as this man gets head line news.
Since this post was written so late at night perhaps we should not take it at face value, but if we are meant to then I think it is the post itself which deserves the adjectives it contains rather than the person it is aimed at.
Probably the least Christian thing I've seen on these boards in a long time.
Posts: 101 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
I don't think Christ died in my place. I reject both the penal and the substitutionary.
I think Christ died in my place, and though I have a few misgivings about the penal I reject neither the penal or the substitutionary.
Having said that, restricting the significance of the passion to atonement is the big problem, Christ's passion is much, MUCH bigger than that. PSA is a useful paradigm to be used in some circumstances, but by no means all of them. To restrict the significance to PSA is the big problem.
Especially when you look at the big picture, the crucifixion was not an isolated event - there's also the resurrection. (I write this on Easter Morning.) In fact I prefer to look at the passion, resurrection, ascension and the sending of the Spirit at Pentecost as part of one thing. Taken in this context PSA contracts to the small idea that it is.
Small though it is, I still don't reject it, but neither do I embrace it with enthusiasm.
Alleluia. Christ is risen.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Dear Martin
I will speak reasonably. And I would like you to tell me if I am being unreasonable here. The way I see it, the most ancient recorded interpretation of the bible to accommodate for PSA comes from feudal Western Europe. Before that, no Christian had put that faith in writing. On the contrary. That faith was rejected by those whom God glorified. Their understanding was different.
Andreas,
I am reasonably sure that you are quite wrong in this, as I've indicated in some other posts. I'm finding out some more information, but I thought I would draw attention to this quote from the Eastern father Chrysostom.
quote:
If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave his well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain; and transferred the death and the guilt as well, from him to his son (who was himself of no such character), that he might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation; and then if, having subsequently promoted him to great dignity, he had yet, after thus saving him and advancing him to that glory unspeakable, been outraged by the person that had received such treatment: would not that man, if he had any sense, have chosen ten thousand deaths rather than appear guilty of so great ingratitude? This then let us also now consider with ourselves, and groan bitterly for the provocations we have offered our Benefactor; nor let us therefore presume, because though outraged he bears it with long-suffering; but rather for this very reason be full of remorse.
-John Chrysostom (c. 350-407), Homilies on Second Corinthians
(in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ser. I, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, repr. 1969), Homily XI, sect. 6, p. 335.)
So far in the last two pages I've posted quotes from Athanasius, Gelazius and Chrysostom that teach penal substitutionary atonement. How are you going on working up a reply?
Gordon.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by riverfalls:
It shows what a sick and peverse world we live in when something as vile as this man gets head line news.
Have you met him?
I have, on more than one occasion.
He has been to dinner at my house and I have heard him preach several times.
He is a holy, yet humble man.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Oops, It seems my computer has decided to re-post a message which I wrote yesterday. Could a kindly host delete the superfluous post, for clarity.
Ta muchly
--------------------
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
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
The thing is, the New Testament offers many different models of understanding the work of Christ. PSA is in there, though not quite in the Anselmian sense it acquired later. There are also images where Jesus is an atoning sacrifice ('behold the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.') This might also encompass the idea of the scapegoat - though, significantly, the scapegoat did not have to die. Then John describes Jesus as being crucified on the day before the Passover, equating him not with the atoning sacrifice but with the Passover lamb, whose blood would save the people from death.
Hebrews picks up on the sacrifice idea within the Jewish paradigm, emphasising the once-for-all nature of the sacrifice, but adding that Jesus, as well as being the ultimate sacrifice, is also the great High Priest, who made the offering of his own blood and through his mediation has reconcilled us with God.
Paul uses a fair bit of military imagery. Jesus is here the 'rescuer', a kind of general in the battle with Sin and Death, who has swooped in and plucked us from the hands of the enemy, and carried us to the safety of the Kingdom. A lot of his use of the word 'save' encompasses this image.
Another image is Redemption, according to the system where a King could buy back prisoners of war by paying the enemy a ransom. Alternatively, a slave could be redeemed by being bought, or a valued item be redeemed by the payment of a debt.
This is in no way an exhaustive list. But it shows to me that the New Testament writers were struggling, just as we do, to explain what God has done in words and images that will make sense to mere humans. To do so, they had to use metaphors. Each metaphor is useful, illuminating some aspect of the work of Christ, but like any metaphor, if you push them too far, they will collapse.
My conclusion - we need all of them. That is why even though I don't really sign up to PSA, I sing quite happily 'The wrath of God was satisfied'. PSA, if pushed too far, does suggest a wrathful, vengeful God - but it reminds me powerfully of God's hatred of sin and the contribution my own sin made to the cross. But then I need to move to another image to keep the balance. (I once sat through a whole service where every hymn had a PSA emphasis, and emerged feeling very depressed - yes, Stuart Townend, they were all yours!)
I understand that PSA might seem the simplest way to explain Jesus' death to a nonbeliever or a novice Christian - though you need a really high Christology to make it work. But the 'rescuing' image is not so difficult either, and neither is the 'redemption' one. And both give a more positive picture of God.
Might be worth a try!
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Revolutionist
Shipmate
# 4578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, firstly, I don't think your liberal friend, in saying that Christ died in his place, was necessarily embracing PSA. The destinctive, and, to me, problematic feature of PSA is not that Christ died in my place. I know he did that, though I probably wouldn't use that precise terminology, because it carries with it quite a bit of baggage. The bit that I have a problem with is that this death was a punishment, exacted, of an albeit willing, but nonetheless innocent, victim.
I think that the "penal" in PSA is slightly more nuanced than Jesus being punished.
What Jesus went through on the Cross was the same as what is the punishment we deserve for sin - death, both spiritually in separation from God and physically in separation of body and soul.
But as I said before, the Bible never says Jesus was punished by God - it uses the language of sacrifice. I think a proper understanding of PSA is not that Jesus was punished in our place, but that Jesus underwent the punishment we deserve as a sacrifice in our place. What Jesus went through was the same as what we deserved, but he went through it as a sacrifice, not as a punishment.
That's not a full description of the atonement, of course, and I think a lot more needs to be filled in for us to make proper sense of it morally, but I do think that "penal substitionary atonement" is a true description of what was going on.
Posts: 1296 | From: London | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And you were doing so well Mr. Revolutionist! The wrath, the righteous punishment of God, fell on whom? It's specious to say that Jesus was sacrificed but NOT punished. Mealy mouthed mate! But NONE can put it better than the awesome Glenn Miller - who explores in perfect balance, which we're oscillating around here, the “Christ died for me” substitutionary atonement and “I died with/in Christ” non-substitutional atonement.
BOTH apply. But let's not pretend that PSA doesn't because it's not nice kiddies.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by riverfalls:
It shows what a sick and peverse world we live in when something as vile as this man gets head line news.
WTF?
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I am convinced of PSA from Scripture, but the reason I think it has caught on is because people can understand it: all of this talk about Jesus showing unconditional love by dying and turning death inside out etc. just doesn't make sense to people.
Proof, if proof were needed, that we live in a fallen world. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Actually, I think you may be right. Spawn said earlier that con evos were the anoraks of the evangelical world, much more interested in the mechanics rather than the mystery of salvation. Whether or not this is fair, the appeal of PSA is that it works on this kind of mechanical level. Mankind stands bereft before the chocolate machine of salvation with no change so God condescends to become the coin that can be dropped into the machine, thus releasing the chocolatey goodness of divine grace. Or something. If one wants a mechanical explanation then PSA works pretty well. We live in a world of instrumental rationality, after all. The only problem is, to paraphrase Henri de Lubac, that Christianity is nothing if it is not rational. But instrumental rationality is the antithesis of the Gospel.
If we are looking for that sort of understanding then Sabellianism is better than Trinitarianism and unitarianism is better than either. Equally quite a lot of Christological heresies are rather less counter intuitive than the Definition of Chalcedon. Conservative Evangelicals, by and large, - to their credit - tend not to abandon these particular beliefs. As Mousethief pointed out both the Trinity and the Incarnation require a reasonably high degree being able to cope with mystery and it would be odd if the atonement was the odd one out among Christian doctrines.
--------------------
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 Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
BOTH apply. But let's not pretend that PSA doesn't because it's not nice kiddies.
Let's not pretend that the only reason people don't agree with it is because they want a "nice" theory.
Let's not pretend that PSA is a good way to incorporate the concept of the seriousness of sin into an atonement theory.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Whether or not this is fair, the appeal of PSA is that it works on this kind of mechanical level.
I see what you're saying; the only problem being that PSA does not work on the level it is supposed to work on. It's supposed to be moral, not mechanical.
If you see God's punishment as some non-moral thing that has to fall on somebody, like pollution or a rock-slide or a runaway train, then PSA would work. But it doesn't explain of itself why God can't just stop it in its tracks.
On the other hand, if you see God's punishment as the moral reward for sins committed, then God can either show mercy or punish, but can't justly deflect it onto an innocent person.
Dafyd
--------------------
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
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
Getting back to what Cannon John said, it seems that two Spring Harvest Bishops (one who posts here) make fools of themselves by attacking his talk without having heard it (here) and have opened themselves to further accusations of homophobia ( here ). All over PSA, a fairly dubious doctrine at the best of times.
You know, if the Fenland Telegraph came to me and asked me for a quote on what The Rev'd Soandso was saying from the pulpit in the next parish, or Pastor Whodathought from the local Baptists was saying on Radio Fenland thought for the day, I would have the basic courtesy to find out what they were saying from the horses mouth first before I made an idiot of myself. If I read something in the Fenland Telegraph about what some other minister was saying I would certainly find out what they were actually saying before I issued a press statement!
I hate paranoia but I am beginning to think that actually there is a systematic persecution of Liberals by the new Evangelical hierarchy of the CofE.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Touch'e Seeker963. Every one understands the primitive, the primal. Every one understands blood sacrifice. I can EASILY see PSA ONLY in "... that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures" (1 Cor 15:3)
In Romans 5:6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
In II Cor. 5:15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
In 1 Thessalonians 5:10 He died for us ...
and perhaps above all by the UTTERLY CHRISTIANLY INCONTROVERTIBLE:
Isaiah 53:5 But he was pierced for OUR transgressions, he was crushed for OUR iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
So please feel free to dilute, rationalize, diminish that. To promote another gospel of another Jesus. And leave the debate. Wither off the vine. The debate becomes WHY does God operate like this? Why does He define love, how IS He Love, in such ferocious terms? In such appalling, lethal, dreadful, bloody terms? Some are struggling with THAT reality here. I do to. But to PRETEND that the gutting God of the Bible is not the God we HAVE to deal with is gutless.
The simplicity of Christ and him crucified is for the simple, for the sick, not for those who don't need it in their unfallen, pure, intellectuality. It's for NORMAL, ordinary people to be able to think Christianly. Not intellectualist esoterica.
Savage Amazonian and Papua New Guinean stoneage tribesmen are brought to Christ by this simplicity. Iraqis will be in the Resurrection. The vast ignorant mass of humanity will.
Because of the stark, affective power of Christ's dying for their, our, your, my SIN.
--------------------
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 might buy that book.
It seems to me that this whole rejection of PSA stems from a couple of things:
1) I do not want to be seen as a sinner.
2) I do not like the idea that God can be offended by my sin.
3) I do not want to beieve that I need a Saviour.
I would want to ask WHY do you not think your sin is imprtant enough for God to want to remedy it?
WHY do you think Jesus had to die a criminal's death - why not in a war or in an accident?
And if God is NOT angry about sin, then what exactly does he feel about it?
And finally, why did God, who so loved the world, send his Son to die in the context of condemnation, if God is not a condemnatory God unless a substituionary Saviour is provided?
--------------------
"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:
It seems to me that this whole rejection of PSA stems from a couple of things:
1) I do not want to be seen as a sinner.
2) I do not like the idea that God can be offended by my sin.
3) I do not want to beieve that I need a Saviour.
Thank you, Mudfrog, that is an enlightning comment. I often find myself wondering what can possibly be appealing about PSA - and you have given a good answer.
Although I have huge problems with PSA, my responses to the above list are: - 1) I do see myself as a sinner.
- 2) I am happy to see sins as an offense to God.
- 3) I very much believe that I need a Savior
I think that the main problem that I have with PSA, aside from portraying a God who is somehow satisfied by the blood of His own Son, is that it is inexplicably accepting of sinful behavior.
As I understand PSA, it implies that we are all sinners who are incapable of reforming - and that therefore refraining from immoral and evil behavior is not a central point of religion. PSA teaches, instead, that faith will miraculously take away the desire for sin. It therefore nullifies the biblical refrain "Cease to do evil, learn to do well."
It makes more sense to me to think that the Bible teaches that we are capable of reforming with God's help, acknowledging that without Him we can do nothing. The Incarnation is therefore about making this happen - God leading humanity in freedom to turn and follow Him by breaking our chains and teaching us the Way.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I might buy that book.
It seems to me that this whole rejection of PSA stems from a couple of things:
1) I do not want to be seen as a sinner.
2) I do not like the idea that God can be offended by my sin.
3) I do not want to beieve that I need a Saviour.
...
I would want to ask WHY do you not think your
And finally, why did God, who so loved the world, send his Son to die in the context of condemnation, if God is not a condemnatory God unless a substituionary Saviour is provided?
I dont think that most people who have an issue with PSA have an issue for any of those 3 reason, Malin. I suggest they come under something like (off the top of my head)
1 - they dont see it as biblical (or as the prime Biblical model - many people see PSA as one model among many in the NT. I tend that way - I think of Paul trying to explain the unexplainable byruning around saying "well its a bit like this, or a bit like this - or try and imagine it *this* way). There isnt a chapter in the bible entitled "two ways to live".
2- it is not "justice" when one man is punished for anothers sins.
3- to some it looks like "cosmic child abuse" (was that steev chalks phrase?) A vengeful God punishing his own son for things he didnt do.
4- *if* all God needed was the death of an innocent person for all our sin... then there is no *need* for the resurrection. The "gospel" message is no longer "Jesus is alive" but "Christ died". The disciples werent exactly model disciples after Jesus' death until the resurrection/pentecost.
5- Belief in a loving God.
Thats some for starters.
I for one acknowledge Im a sinner and need a saviour (who doesnt?!) but its the method (?) perhaps that people argue about. I tend towards thinking Christ died becuase we killed him, and God knew that would happen (human nature ra ra ra). I dont tend towards simplifying the "goodnews" to God now finds me acceptable because he killed his son, which is how PSA can come across.
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Touch'e Seeker963. Every one understands the primitive, the primal. Every one understands blood sacrifice. I can EASILY see PSA ONLY in "... that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures" (1 Cor 15:3)
In Romans 5:6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
In II Cor. 5:15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
In 1 Thessalonians 5:10 He died for us ...
and perhaps above all by the UTTERLY CHRISTIANLY INCONTROVERTIBLE:
Isaiah 53:5 But he was pierced for OUR transgressions, he was crushed for OUR iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
So please feel free to dilute, rationalize, diminish that. To promote another gospel of another Jesus. And leave the debate. Wither off the vine. The debate becomes WHY does God operate like this? Why does He define love, how IS He Love, in such ferocious terms? In such appalling, lethal, dreadful, bloody terms? Some are struggling with THAT reality here. I do to. But to PRETEND that the gutting God of the Bible is not the God we HAVE to deal with is gutless.
The simplicity of Christ and him crucified is for the simple, for the sick, not for those who don't need it in their unfallen, pure, intellectuality. It's for NORMAL, ordinary people to be able to think Christianly. Not intellectualist esoterica.
Savage Amazonian and Papua New Guinean stoneage tribesmen are brought to Christ by this simplicity. Iraqis will be in the Resurrection. The vast ignorant mass of humanity will.
Because of the stark, affective power of Christ's dying for their, our, your, my SIN.
Oh Martin, Martin! Why must anyone who finds PSA heretical, or repugnant, or incoherent, or unscriptural, or in any other way unsatisfactory, find it so because of base motives, or a desire to rationalise or dilute the Gospel. You look at all the passages of scripture that you quote, and can only see PSA there. Is it not possible that this is because you have been taught that this is what those passages mean. With the possible exception of the Isaiah 53 verses, none of the quotations seems to me to imply a penal understanding of the atonement.
Neither am I convinced that "everyone understands blood atonement". On the contrary, most people, istm, misunderstand the concept, thinking it synonymous with pagan sacrificial ideas.
As to the people of Iraq, notwithstanding the dubious record of human intervention by rescue mission, I would have thought that the concept of divine deliverance from the oppression of sin and death should have a particular resonance.
There is nothing particularly challenging, intellectually, in alternative models of atonement. You find PSA simple and straightforward, but I suspect that you only find it so because that is the model which you have been taught. To people such as myself, who don't find it convincing, is seems neither simple nor straightforward, and it may be that they find it demeans, rather than glorifys, God, and is antithetical to, rather than inherent in, the Gospel.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I think that the main problem that I have with PSA, aside from portraying a God who is somehow satisfied by the blood of His own Son, is that it is inexplicably accepting of sinful behavior.
As I understand PSA, it implies that we are all sinners who are incapable of reforming - and that therefore refraining from immoral and evil behavior is not a central point of religion. PSA teaches, instead, that faith will miraculously take away the desire for sin. It therefore nullifies the biblical refrain "Cease to do evil, learn to do well."
It makes more sense to me to think that the Bible teaches that we are capable of reforming with God's help, acknowledging that without Him we can do nothing. The Incarnation is therefore about making this happen - God leading humanity in freedom to turn and follow Him by breaking our chains and teaching us the Way.
Sin, as taught in the Bible, does indeed make us to be sinners who are incapeable of reforming. If all we needed was reformation, do you think it would have be necessary for Christ to die? If all we needed was behavioural reformation, the the Torah is perfectly sufficient. However we are 'dead in trespasses and sins' Don't forget, a trespass is a wilful, deiberate wrongdoing, a breach of God's law that has called condemnation and wrath upon us all. PSA simply teaches that, in our place, Jesus took that wrath so that we could die to sin and sin no more, by his grace. That is where sanctification kicks in.
PSA is not accepting of sinful behaviour. It recognises that because of my sin, Christ died. How then can I continue to sin?
--------------------
"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:
Sin, as taught in the Bible, does indeed make us to be sinners who are incapeable of reforming.
Where does the Bible say this? Are you saying that the Bible is not constantly urging us to reform?
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If all we needed was reformation, do you think it would have be necessary for Christ to die? If all we needed was behavioural reformation, the the Torah is perfectly sufficient.
Not just behavior, but reformation of the heart and mind. This is why Jesus bothered to teach - and didn't just come to die. His dying is part of what He came to teach, and part of the struggle through which He defeated the power of hell in our hearts.
The Torah was not sufficient. It was not understood, and it was so cloaked in figurative language that its spiritual message could not be clearly seen. Jesus came to make it clear.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
PSA is not accepting of sinful behaviour. It recognises that because of my sin, Christ died. How then can I continue to sin?
You can sin because if you think that you have no power over your sins then you can go ahead and commit them. Especially if you believe that you are saved even while being a sinner. The Bible, by contrast, teaches that you are not saved unless you stop being a sinner.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that this whole rejection of PSA stems from a couple of things:
1) I do not want to be seen as a sinner.
2) I do not like the idea that God can be offended by my sin.
3) I do not want to beieve that I need a Saviour.
I would want to ask WHY do you not think your sin is imprtant enough for God to want to remedy it?
WHY do you think Jesus had to die a criminal's death - why not in a war or in an accident?
And if God is NOT angry about sin, then what exactly does he feel about it?
And finally, why did God, who so loved the world, send his Son to die in the context of condemnation, if God is not a condemnatory God unless a substituionary Saviour is provided?
On what do you base such an accusation? It's a pretty serious charge, so I hope you can substantiate it.
To answer your three questions
- the mode of Jesus death was important because it had to be self-sacrificial, ("according to the Scriptures") at the hands of those he was serving, and in utter humility, because it required all the power of God to accomplish His purpose, and the power of God is at its most powerful in His humility. Crucifixion is consistent with all these, but don't forget, also, the human side of things. Jesus was a threat to the whole world order, based, as it is, on a veruy different (and, of course, weaker) idea of power. And crucifixion was a way of getting rid of troublemakers. So why not, rather than why, crucifixion. Other deaths would, maybe, have been possible, but crucifixion was consistant with all the requirements.
- I never implied that God is not angry about sin. He sees it as a oppressor of His beloved children. What I would assert is that the way of dealing with sin (or rather of guilt) is by forgiveness, rather than by punishment.
- I really don't understand your third question. What do you mean when you say, "in the context of condemnation"? Do you mean the context of a trial, in which case the question seems just a repeat of your first question; or are you referring to the specific wording of John 3:16, which talks of perishing rather than condemnation.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
JJ - this is hard stuff. Then YOU, like me, like ALL of us, find God REPUGNANT. Which is HONEST of us. Isaiah 53 is ALL that's needed for PSA. Rats, gotta take the missus out again, Rutland Water. Keep coming back at me, I will come back.
LOVE - for what it's worth - Martin
--------------------
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:
So please feel free to dilute, rationalize, diminish that.
This is certainly more worthy of Hell than of Purgatory.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Isaiah 53 is ALL that's needed for PSA.
Bizarrely, however, there don't seem to be any Jewish advocates of PSA.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Oh, I don't find God repugnant. Which sits rather comfortably with my belief that we are created and redeemed in order to enjoy God, both now and hereafter. I find mythical pagan gods who slaughter the innocent and rule by arbitrary fiat repugnant, however.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
First off, what Spawn said. PSA is a metaphor. Taking it too literally is, to me, a very dangerous practice. Just because I say that God is the light of the world doesn't meant that God has a specific wavelength and frequency.
And now onto this:
quote:
Originally Posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that this whole rejection of PSA stems from a couple of things:
1) I do not want to be seen as a sinner.
2) I do not like the idea that God can be offended by my sin.
3) I do not want to believe that I need a Saviour.
I would want to ask WHY do you not think your sin is important enough for God to want to remedy it?
WHY do you think Jesus had to die a criminal's death - why not in a war or in an accident?
And if God is NOT angry about sin, then what exactly does he feel about it?
And finally, why did God, who so loved the world, send his Son to die in the context of condemnation, if God is not a condemnatory God unless a substitutionary Saviour is provided?
Let's see....
1) No, I'm pretty comfortable with being a sinner. So much so, in fact, that I don't feel a need to act like there's something special about it. The whole bloody human race is made up of sinners, including the Christians. It's not a question of sin vs. non-sin, it's a question of how much sin, and how well can you remedy it on your own.
2) Why assume that God takes it personally? I don't really imagine an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God really being concerned with it, any more than my body (as analogy) gets all worked up about a few cancerous cells. It doesn't get upset, it just kills them, or eventually dies of its inability to do so.
The cells, on the other hand, have every reason to be concerned!
3) Of course I need a Saviour! But...what was the purpose of his salvation? Was it just to save a few people who belonged to certain denominations of the church, or was it to save everybody? And again, I think there's danger in taking this too mechanistically.
God didn't remedy sin, God just showed a way out of sin to the only people on the world who seemed to be sort of on the right track. Why He picked them, of all the millions, we may never know, but if Christianity is right, He did. He pointed the Way as clearly as he could (ha!), and now we all try to follow, and like the tribes of Israel, we still do a lot of meandering. But that doesn't seem to be God's affair right now; it's ours. God just gave us the freedom to try, knowing full well that we'd never really succeed on our own, and so he gave us Grace and the Holy Spirit to take us the rest of the way.
Jesus had to die a criminal's death, in part, to show us all that God was willing to go that far for us, and because it was the death He chose. I think it's damned obvious that Jesus would have never set foot on a battlefield with a physical sword drawn. If he were that kind, he would have resisted arrest and become just another statistic to the ancient Roman Empire. And if he was truly the Son of God, would he have died by accident? He did walk on water, right? No, the crucifixion was meant to be a message, and a very peculiarly localized and contextualized message (sacrificial lambs and all) to a very peculiar band of middle eastern nomads.
And again, I don't have the faintest clue why he chose the ancient Hebrews. I guess they were lucky (or perhaps unlucky, depending on how you look at it).
I don't think God gets angry anymore than the ocean gets angry. It just goes, and if you don't treat it with respect, you might get lucky, but you probably get drowned. I don't think God takes sin personally. I don't think there's a "person" up there to take things personally. I think God just is. He doesn't have feelings, per se, He just acts, and to me, sin is just an act of rebellion against God, and that just doesn't really work in the long run. You can't fight against the universe.
Again, if Jesus hadn't died the lowest death possible, His message would not have echoed nearly so strongly. It's harder to get worked up about a guy who falls down the stairs. That's just a random incident. It's harder to get worked up about a criminal who dies in a hail of gunfire, or in a ring of spears. That's just everyday justice. No, to go voluntarily to crucifixion, even undeserved crucifixion, in the name of God...that's the stuff headlines are made of.
And in the Jewish system, He was the final sacrifice that ended the tyranny of the Talmud (and possibly the Torah), but that's not the same thing as PSA, to my eyes.
I think God condemns, but I don't think He really makes much of a fuss about it, or that He gets angry. We, as humans, are the ones who get (justifiably) upset about it.
Eh, it's all just part of His plan. That's good enough for me.
--------------------
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
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
JJ - this is hard stuff. Then YOU, like me, like ALL of us, find God REPUGNANT.
You confuse finding a man-made construct of how atonement might work repugnant with finding God repugnant. Yes, if PSA were the only possible way of viewing God's reconciling act, God would be repugnant to me. But that is a refutation of PSA, not a proof that God is repugnant to His creatures.
If you find your mental constructs for God's saving acts repugnant to you, abandon the constructs, don't foul the Almighty with your bile. This really seems blasphemous to me.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PhilA
shipocaster
# 8792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Touch'e Seeker963. Every one understands the primitive, the primal. Every one understands blood sacrifice. I can EASILY see PSA ONLY in "... that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures" (1 Cor 15:3)
In Romans 5:6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
In II Cor. 5:15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
In 1 Thessalonians 5:10 He died for us ...
and perhaps above all by the UTTERLY CHRISTIANLY INCONTROVERTIBLE:
Isaiah 53:5 But he was pierced for OUR transgressions, he was crushed for OUR iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
So please feel free to dilute, rationalize, diminish that. To promote another gospel of another Jesus. And leave the debate. Wither off the vine. The debate becomes WHY does God operate like this? Why does He define love, how IS He Love, in such ferocious terms? In such appalling, lethal, dreadful, bloody terms? Some are struggling with THAT reality here. I do to. But to PRETEND that the gutting God of the Bible is not the God we HAVE to deal with is gutless.
The simplicity of Christ and him crucified is for the simple, for the sick, not for those who don't need it in their unfallen, pure, intellectuality. It's for NORMAL, ordinary people to be able to think Christianly. Not intellectualist esoterica.
Savage Amazonian and Papua New Guinean stoneage tribesmen are brought to Christ by this simplicity. Iraqis will be in the Resurrection. The vast ignorant mass of humanity will.
Because of the stark, affective power of Christ's dying for their, our, your, my SIN.
You seem to be seeing a because where I see an in spite of.
If God loves us and forgives us because we killed his Son, the PSA is the only way, or at least, predominant way to look at the cross.
But what if we look at this in a different light. What if God loves us and forgives us in spite of us killing his Son?
These quotes of yours still make perfect sense (As do many other quotes concerning the cross), but (IMHO) makes God more worthy of worship, more forgiving and more loving.
- In the beginning, God made us and gave us one simple rule - we screwed up and broke it.
- God gave us a covenant based on a law we could understand - we screwed up and broke it.
- God sent us prophets to re-explain the law and help us turn back to God - we screwed up and ignored them.
- God sent us his only Son to live for us and with us and show us who he was - we screwed up and killed him.*
- God raised him from the dead to show us that it was all for us that he came here in the first place. He also sent his spirit because, you know what? Even though we have screwed up so much and Got It Wrong ™ every single step of the way, God still loves us and God still forgives us.
In that sense, Jesus died for us. Jesus died, in part, to get our attention because we wouldn't listen any other way. 'God so loves the world that he sent his only Son', and even though we stripped him, nailed him to a cross, spat on him and told God we didn't want him, God still loves us and still forgives us and still stands there with open arms waiting for us, all of us who 'believe on him', so that we 'shall not perish but have eternal life'. God doesn't love us because we killed his Son, he loves us in spite of it. As Jesus himself said; 'Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.'
*What blows my biscuit every time is that God knew we would do this because, lets face it, our track record isn't brilliant, and still He came.
--------------------
To err is human. To arr takes a pirate.
Posts: 3121 | From: Sofa | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
And in the Jewish system, He was the final sacrifice that ended the tyranny of the Talmud (and possibly the Torah), but that's not the same thing as PSA, to my eyes.
What do you mean by 'the tyranny of the Talmud?' The Talmud hadn't yet been written. The oral tradition of debate that eventually became written down in The Talmud has many, many teachings similar to/exactly the same as Jesus. On that basis, is the teaching of Jesus also tyrrany?
--------------------
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
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
[POSSIBLE TANGENT]
I was going partly on my reading of the Gospels, and a commentary I've read. If you know more about this than I do, please share.
My observation was that Jesus was condemning (or at least criticizing rather vigorously) the Pharisees who had built these incredibly complicated commentaries and extensions of the Law and set them up as an expression of God's will unto themselves. And according to the reading I've done, some of them took this law so far as to say that people who didn't do it exactly as they did were obviously "lesser Jews." Rather than consider the purpose of the Sabbath, they enforced very strict, sometimes ridiculous rules governing what one could and could not do not the Sabbath (just as an example).
When I typed "Talmud," I was referring to this practice of micromanaging exegesis, of expanding the law in preposterous ways so that everybody knew exactly what God's hypothetical will would be in every situation. The Talmud hadn't been written yet, but the foundations were there. I'm also criticizing a particular style of exegesis that is associated with what I suppose to be some Talmudic thought, not criticizing the Talmud itself.
And yes, I'm making a bit of a straw man out of the Pharisees to prove that there's a negative extreme that Jesus was against. I don't mean to say that they all felt this way, but I think it was one current of thinking at the time, and continues to be one today (and not only among Jews, I've heard of neo-pagans who can get caught up in this kind of thing). It's also one expressed many times in the Gospel, so I figure there's something to it.
I think one of Christ's points was that sin is not a matter of proper obedience to the Laws written by man, but of proper obedience to the Law written by God, and this is based on loving your neighbor and loving God, rather than refusing to turn the lights on on Saturday, for instance (no disrespect to Orthodox Jews intended, that's just a statement of my belief).
Tyranny? I think tyranny refers to human things. The "tyranny" of God is just the way things are in and of themselves. As much as we interpret it, there is only one reality.
If I had to pick a tyrant, I think Christ makes a pretty good role model for one, for he said that in order to truly lead one would have to be a servant of all.
Does that clarify where I'm coming from?
[/POSSIBLE TANGENT]
--------------------
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
|
|
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
[*]In the beginning, God made us and gave us one simple rule - we screwed up and broke it.
[*]God gave us a covenant based on a law we could understand - we screwed up and broke it.
[*]God sent us prophets to re-explain the law and help us turn back to God - we screwed up and ignored them.
[*]God sent us his only Son to live for us and with us and show us who he was - we screwed up and killed him.*
[*]God raised him from the dead to show us that it was all for us that he came here in the first place. He also sent his spirit because, you know what? Even though we have screwed up so much and Got It Wrong ™ every single step of the way, God still loves us and God still forgives us.
[/list]
In that sense, Jesus died for us. Jesus died, in part, to get our attention because we wouldn't listen any other way. 'God so loves the world that he sent his only Son', and even though we stripped him, nailed him to a cross, spat on him and told God we didn't want him, God still loves us and still forgives us and still stands there with open arms waiting for us, all of us who 'believe on him', so that we 'shall not perish but have eternal life'. God doesn't love us because we killed his Son, he loves us in spite of it. As Jesus himself said; 'Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.'
Nicely put, PhilA.
--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.
--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com
Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Stroll on. And we only got as far as Rockingham Castle. Awesome.
First things first.
Seeker963: Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: "So please feel free to dilute, rationalize, diminish that." This is certainly more worthy of Hell than of Purgatory.
True. Then I must ... and I must ... unreservedly apologize.
Rats.
Next: Ah, a fine couple of examples of rhetoric.
Divine Outlaw Dwarf: Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: "Isaiah 53 is ALL that's needed for PSA." Bizarrely, however, there don't seem to be any Jewish advocates of PSA.
VERY weak DOD, there aren't many Jewish advocates of Jesus as the Messiah either. I mean, come on, I'm a thick old boy, anti-intellectual, an unschooled con-evo fascist and all, you MUST be able to do better than that.
And, DODdy, do you find the God of the OT repugnant? The one who drowned the world? Nuked S&G? Etc, etc, etc. Ordered the ethnic cleansing of tribes down to their infants? Etc, etc. Sent she-bears to rend delinquents when an ASBO wouldn't do? Etc, etc, etc. Killed a man for touching a box the wrong way? Etc, etc ... ?
Mirrizin. Reducing PSA to a mere metaphor is a very dangerous practice. Was the torture and murder of Christ a metaphor? I'll leave you and the mucky amphibian to it I think!
And tclune: brilliant as ever, but I do not identify PSA as the ONLY way, but as one of the concurrent ways and the legally dominant one.
And PhilA: I TOTALLY agree. He forgives, pardons us BECAUSE of PSA BECAUSE He contingently, eternally, preveniently loves us; because AND despite that we killed His Son.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And, DODdy, do you find the God of the OT repugnant?
Marcionite.
And no, I don't find the one God, as witnessed to in the pages of the Old Testament, repugnant. I do, however, think that the human beings who wrote God's words down wrote in societies which were, in some ways, repugnant; and this repugnance inevitably coloured their understanding of God's revelation. It also determined the metaphors available to them to express their experience of that revelation. Such are the risks God takes in historical self-disclosure.
[ 09. April 2007, 19:32: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
[POSSIBLE TANGENT]
I was going partly on my reading of the Gospels, and a commentary I've read. If you know more about this than I do, please share.
My observation was that Jesus was condemning (or at least criticizing rather vigorously) the Pharisees who had built these incredibly complicated commentaries and extensions of the Law and set them up as an expression of God's will unto themselves. And according to the reading I've done, some of them took this law so far as to say that people who didn't do it exactly as they did were obviously "lesser Jews." Rather than consider the purpose of the Sabbath, they enforced very strict, sometimes ridiculous rules governing what one could and could not do not the Sabbath (just as an example).
When I typed "Talmud," I was referring to this practice of micromanaging exegesis, of expanding the law in preposterous ways so that everybody knew exactly what God's hypothetical will would be in every situation. The Talmud hadn't been written yet, but the foundations were there. I'm also criticizing a particular style of exegesis that is associated with what I suppose to be some Talmudic thought, not criticizing the Talmud itself.
And yes, I'm making a bit of a straw man out of the Pharisees to prove that there's a negative extreme that Jesus was against. I don't mean to say that they all felt this way, but I think it was one current of thinking at the time, and continues to be one today (and not only among Jews, I've heard of neo-pagans who can get caught up in this kind of thing). It's also one expressed many times in the Gospel, so I figure there's something to it.
I think one of Christ's points was that sin is not a matter of proper obedience to the Laws written by man, but of proper obedience to the Law written by God, and this is based on loving your neighbor and loving God, rather than refusing to turn the lights on on Saturday, for instance (no disrespect to Orthodox Jews intended, that's just a statement of my belief).
Tyranny? I think tyranny refers to human things. The "tyranny" of God is just the way things are in and of themselves. As much as we interpret it, there is only one reality.
If I had to pick a tyrant, I think Christ makes a pretty good role model for one, for he said that in order to truly lead one would have to be a servant of all.
Does that clarify where I'm coming from?
[/POSSIBLE TANGENT]
It seems to me that you have not read much. if anything, of the Talmud. You have also bought into the criticism of some pharisees as if it was a criticicism of all pharisees. Jesus also criticised gentiles and future church leeaders too.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
![[Smile]](smile.gif) ME a dualist? Duellist yes. So the Flood is our misinterpretation? Misattribution of the last bout of global warming to God? No Death Angel came to the Passover? I mean, what's LEFT of the OT if you take the illiberal nasty bits out?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GoodCatholicLad
Shipmate
# 9231
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
I don't think Christ died in my place. I reject both the penal and the substitutionary.
My priest once said on a lecture on Fundamentalism that if Jesus' only reason for being on this earth was to die for our sins, ie his ministry, his teachings, his love were not that important. Mary should have smacked him in the head with a rock soon after he was born.
--------------------
All you have is right now.
Posts: 1234 | From: San Francisco California | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I mean, what's LEFT of the OT if you take the illiberal nasty bits out?
I am not advocating 'taking bits out'. I accept as scripture all those books which the Church does. I am suggesting that texts are complicated things. They communicate truth in a variety of ways. Their relationship to historical revelation is not that of photograph to photographed.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
GLC - 1st class, BUT no PSA - no Jesus, just a bloke, 'mere' humanism. DOD - now THAT'S better. Like fishing for pike this.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I'm not saying it's a mere metaphor, not at all. The sacrifice was very, very real for the ancient peoples, and since we're in their footsteps, for us today. Saying that it served a greater purpose than a mere exercise in displaced wrath is not saying that it's any less real.
leo:
I never said I was an expert. And I admitted that I was making a straw man based on some familiar biblical passages. At the same time, it's probably true that the Pharisees captured in the Bible don't speak for the entireity of the movement.
Could you unpack what you said a little? What, in your opinion, is the relationship between these books and the crucifixion? And where did Jesus criticize the Gentiles?
And yes, I'll be the first to plead ignorance, though I appreciate the reminder.
--------------------
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
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
True. Then I must ... and I must ... unreservedly apologize.
Thank you. I'll leave our discussion at that.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I might buy that book.
It seems to me that this whole rejection of PSA stems from a couple of things:
1) I do not want to be seen as a sinner.
Wrong. At least, I don't like the idea, but I believe it's true.
quote:
2) I do not like the idea that God can be offended by my sin.
As above
quote:
3) I do not want to beieve that I need a Saviour.
As above.
Actually, Mudfrog, I want an apology from you for this series of unfounded allegations. You have simply turned a theological disagreement into an opportunity to attack, denigrate and belittle the faith, honesty and integrity of the people you disagree with. That is, frankly, disgusting.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Ach, sod it, I'm taking it to Hell. I'm fed up with this sort of shit.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
