Posted                       

quote:

---

Surely the way we present the gospel has to be relevant to both groups? I know that you are not saying this, but I think we need PSA (alongside the other metaphors) to make it clear that sin is a serious issue. I am well aware that CV treats sin seriously but I'm thinking of the impact on the man / woman on the street. CV sometimes comes across to me a bit like this - "there was a deadly posionous snake outside your house, but its okay, Jesus killed it for you!" To which the reply from most people is, "Whatever! I wasn't aware of the danger beforehand and now you're telling me that the danger is gone now anyway!"

Now, I'm sure that I've caricatured your handling of CV but I'd love you to explain how CV stops being a 'drama enacted in front of me the spectator' and something that catches me up into God's wonderful salvation plan.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
I'd suggest that the nature of God is compromised if he freely fogives without the 'ransom' of the life of a perfect sacrifice. The concept of punitive is clearly a major issue for some. For me it is a by product, not a fundamental, It is just an abstraction to describe the process. Ransom, price paid, punishment... really all the same thing. So you don't like 'penalty' as a term? call it the necessary cost or price. A rose by any other name...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

In a sense, the hunger and thirst is the filling; the filling is the hunger and thirst.

---

Sorry, Numpty, missed that line. Thought I'd better repeat it because - well, because it deserves repeating

--------------------
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)

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
I'd suggest that the nature of God is compromised if he freely fogives without the 'ransom' of the life of a perfect sacrifice. The concept of punitive is clearly a major issue for some. For me it is a by product, not a fundamental, It is just an abstraction to describe the process. Ransom, price paid, punishment... really all the same thing. So you don't like 'penalty' as a term? call it the necessary cost or price. A rose by any other name...

---

To me, the difference is of utmost importance.

The cost to God and his creation of us following our sinful instincts is that his creation has been messed up and the eschatological solution of a New Creation is needed. The cost of sin to creation is hatred, murder, exploitation, etc. And God weeps. The cost that Jesus paid for following God's way rather than the way of sin was his painful crucifixion.

The above is vastly, vastly different than saying that God demands the price of a perfect human life before he will even think of forgiving us.

The God in paragraph 1 weeps with his suffering creation. The god in paragraph 2 seems to care primarily that either: a) abstract philosophical ideas about justice and forgiveness fall neatly into place like a mathematical formula or b) about his own honour.

---

Exactly, Seeker!

--------------------
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)

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Surely the way we present the gospel has to be relevant to both groups? I know that you are not saying this, but I think we need PSA (alongside the other metaphors) to make it clear that sin is a serious issue. I am well aware that CV treats sin seriously but I'm thinking of the impact on the man / woman on the street. CV sometimes comes across to me a bit like this - "there was a deadly posionous snake outside your house, but its okay, Jesus killed it for you!" To which the reply from most people is, "Whatever!

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The bit I'm not too sure about, though, is the idea that the motivator for repentance is the realisation of the need for forgiveness, rather than an appreciation of that forgiveness itself. I have no doubt that some experience that process in that order, but it wasn't so for me, and it does seem that there is biblical mandate for my experience (eg 1 John 4:19 and Romans 2:4 , which seem to suggest that it is the very act of God in forgiving us that leads to our repentance).

But, overall, I think we're in agreement about this. Sure I can't tempt you over to the dark side

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Jamat:

quote:

---

No sin can approach him. Consequently, He must find a way to reach us while simultaneously dealing with our sin, and ensuring his own nature remains untainted by said sin.

---

And yet when He was Incarnate in Christ He was able to let us approach Him, to reach us, to touch us, and yet remain untainted by sin.

quote:

---

Should he have compromised his own nature by forgiving without that 'satisfaction,' I believe the moral balance of the universe would have been irretrievably compromised.

---

That implies that the "moral balance of the universe" is something to which God must be made subject. Hello to the new God, "moral balance of the universe".

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
God is the 'moral balanace of the universe'. It's not that he is subject to something he must obey; but God has stated that his primary desire is for his name to be hallowed. Anything less would make him an idolater.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

The 'moral balance of the universe' is a bit pedantic I know. Trying to express that he contains an integrity within himself on which creation depends. Don't give me any breaks. If you can crack the consistency of my theology I'll change it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

God is the 'moral balanace of the universe'. It's not that he is subject to something he must obey; but God has stated that his primary desire is for his name to be hallowed. Anything less would make him an idolater.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I am well aware that CV treats sin seriously but I'm thinking of the impact on the man / woman on the street. CV sometimes comes across to me a bit like this - "there was a deadly posionous snake outside your house, but its okay, Jesus killed it for you!" To which the reply from most people is, "Whatever! I wasn't aware of the danger beforehand and now you're telling me that the danger is gone now anyway!"

Now, I'm sure that I've caricatured your handling of CV but I'd love you to explain how CV stops being a 'drama enacted in front of me the spectator' and something that catches me up into God's wonderful salvation plan.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
God is the 'moral balanace of the universe'. It's not that he is subject to something he must obey; but God has stated that his primary desire is for his name to be hallowed. Anything less would make him an idolater.

---

But what does "His name to be hallowed" mean? And why is a God who demands a penalty more hallowed than one who freely forgives?

<snip>

Requiring a penalty makes that problem worse - God not only does not forgive the impenitent, but He can't even forgive the penitent without someone getting squished. God is made even less like we are required to be ourselves.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
We don't have to get all of Christian theology, Christology, soteriology and atonement theory into one sound-bite.

---

Why do we keep getting caught in these false dichotomies?

I have never tried to make PSA an exhaustive summary of the gospel. The fact is that I've got tired of putting that clarification in and so had assumed it on this occasion.

You have made the point, rightly, on many occasions that our view of the atonement will impact our behaviour and practice. I was merely trying to say that our models (NB plural ) will naturally impact our own theology and our mission. How you get from that point to me walking up to someone in the street and using concepts like 'penal' 'substitution', or 'atonement' is beyond me...?

Posted                       

Wow, Numpty, what a densely (in the best sense of the word) argued post.

If I could just respond to the second part first ('cause I'm awkward that way :

quote:

---

Furthermore, the passage does make a direct link between the need for holiness (refining in verse 10) and the hallowing of his name (not being profaned in verse 11). It says that God refines his people in order that his name (see definition above) will not be profaned (made unholy). God's desire to have all creation united with him is in tension with the fact of its unholiness. There is a tension between God's name (his desire for union with creation) and our unholiness (our need to be cut off).

Verse 10 also says that 'affliction' is the means by which God refines. So, with that theological presupposition in place, it is possible, IMO, to move towards PSA in Christ on the cross as the point in history when God's anger ceased in its deferment. In Christ, on the cross, both the means of refinement (i.e. affliction) and the reason for the afflication (sin) meet. He became sin for us; he was afflicted for us. The affliction was being cut off from the Father.

---

Firstly, I don't have any problem with God refining us (so to speak, except when it applies to me )so we can probably let that point rest as agreed.

Secondly, I'm not sure that we can argue back from God saying, "If I were not as I Am, I would destroy you" (summarised) to "a possibility of being cut off", rather, is not the natural sense, "because I am what I am, you will not be cut off." Why use such language - because it is important for us that we realise that our salvation is purely by gift.

Furthermore, I don't think that you have shown (from this passage, anyway) that our unholiness is a threat to (if you want to put it like that - I'm struggling for good words - compromises, that will do) His Holiness. Alison defines sin as "that which can be forgiven. I like that. Thus it is the very fact that we are in a state of needing forgiveness that gives God the opportunity to display before the nations His mighty worth. The sense is that dealing with sin in a punitive way would make God less than He is. Hence the "deferred wrath". The wrath is deferred because He wants to show a better way, revealed most completely in Christ. Before the Incarnation, the "nations" would be able with justification to point at God and say "You are no better than us: You don't have an answer to sin either." (I'm speaking figureatively, of course)
But the incarnation reveals, pace Romans 3:26, the true nature of Divine justice - the restorative justice of the resurrection.

As for whether or not Christ was separated from the Father on the Cross, I would say "yes, but the Father was not separated from Him". Jesus was separated, not because the Father could not look on sin, but because He shared, in that moment, our alienation from the Father. The barrier is all on our side.

Don't know if that's coherent enough to make any sensae to you?

Returning to the first half of your post:

quote:

---

I agree, it does suggest that. However, one of the misreprentations of PSA, I think, is the idea that the OT God is a smiting God and the NT God is a loving God because he's all punished out. That isn't the case, God has always been a God of restraint.

However, the passage actually says that God's anger is 'deferred' and 'restrained'. It doesn't say that it doesn't exist; it suggests that God's anger has a time delay on it.

What is does say, however, is that the deferment of God's anger is directly related to his passion for his name. As I said earlier I understand 'name' here to mean God's desire to be the central, indeed only, object of satisfaction, joy and fulfilment for his creatures and indeed for himself.

So, according to Isaiah, God was (or perhaps still is according to your perspective) deferring his anger because his ultimate desire is for all creation to be satifisfied and fulfilled in him and him alone. For this is how his name will be hallowed.

But, the passage also makes a direct link between God's anger and the possibility of being 'cut off'; God's anger is something that has the potential to cause separation from him.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
You have made the point, rightly, on many occasions that our view of the atonement will impact our behaviour and practice. I was merely trying to say that our models (NB plural ) will naturally impact our own theology and our mission. How you get from that point to me walking up to someone in the street and using concepts like 'penal' 'substitution', or 'atonement' is beyond me...?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

As I understand it, regarding CV, you said that if you tell the average person on the street that Jesus defeated sin, death and the power of Satan their response will be 'Whatever.'

I'm saying that if you tell the average person on the street that Jesus died to pay the penalty of their sins, IMO they will also say 'Whatever'.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
At the risk of starting a thread on Catherine Tate there are two sorts of 'whatever!' The first is one of dismissal due to lack of relevance, the second is rejection because of perceived lack of relevance. I think we need to carefully distinguish between the two.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
As I said before I've never heard any 'popularist' presentations of CV so I was only thinking out loud. But the bottom line (for any atonement model) is that it shouldn't be rejected just because some people communicate it poorly.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Seeker963:
....God demands the price of a perfect human life before he will even think of forgiving us.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
God's wrath if you like was turned from humanity onto himself yet paradoxically since Christ was in human form, he (God) was able to deem humanity punished.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Every NT reference to Jesus' blood states or implies this as a fundamental mechanism that operates to enable restoration of fellowship between Man and God.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

I don't think that you have shown (from this passage, anyway) that our unholiness is a threat to (if you want to put it like that - I'm struggling for good words - compromises, that will do) His Holiness.

---

quote:

---

The wrath is deferred because He wants to show a better way, revealed most completely in Christ.

---

quote:

---

I don't have a problem with the idea that God has an anger against sin, though whether that is reflected in an anger towards sinners may, I guess, be a bone of contention between us. I would hold that this anger results in forgiveness, since, even apart from its inherent positive nature, even pragmatically forgiveness is the only way of truly dealing with sin.

---

quote:

---

25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

I was approaching the issue indirectly by raising the idea that God’s desire for creation to be satisfied in him above all things (for his name to be hallowed) is in tension with the fact that the people that God desires to satisfy do not want, by nature, to be satisfied in him: they are unholy. Holiness is not something we do, and then approach God saying, 'Look God! I'm holy, just like you said!' No, holiness is the result of God hallowing his name in us by the power of the Holy Spirit.
So, I see it like this: God wants his creatures to glorify him by being satisfied in him alone (to be holy) but the creatures that he desires to satisfy are wilfully unholy and fundamentally opposed to the idea of being satisfied in him. This fundamental resistance to being satisfied in God is the root of all sin because the essence of sin is seeking pleasure and satisfaction in anything other than God to the exclusion of God.

---

quote:

---

I ... believe that God’s desire for the eternal satisfaction of his creatures does not logically cancel out his commitment to penal justice. So, God’s willingness, even his burning desire, to overlook sin in his creatures without punishing them lays him open to a charge of inconsistency with his own nature.

---

quote:

---

In other words, God might be legitimately accused of breaking his own numerous promises to exact penal vengeance for sin. An accuser might conceivably point out that the deferment of God’s wrath means that the sins of humanity are essentially brushed under the carpet of the universe. God, in effect, has become complicit in a massive cover up by fulfilling only half of what he has promised. Yes, he has justified the unrighteous, but at the expense of justice.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

After all, when we see someone refusing to take a retriubutive action which would, by any account, be quite justified , but rather forgiving, we laud them for their Christ-like-ness, rather than berate them for the injustice of their position.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
[quote] Numpty, I want to again ask the question that I asked some weeks ago; it may have been on another thread.

This all sounds really good from one perspective. But what I want to know is whether, when all these people are put in hell for not being Christians, I'm allowed to weep for them?

---

quote:

---

Will God weep for them?

---

quote:

---

Or will God say to me, 'You're not allowed to weep in heaven because they got their just desserts.'

---

quote:

---

This is not a theoreticial question for me. My father is an atheist. He gave up on the idea of there being a God when he got drafted to Korea and was put in a company consisting of African-, Polish- and Italian-Americans (for transparency, he is Italian-American). Their job was to dismantle land-mines by hand and he saw many of his buddies killed instantly. They were TOLD that they were in this company because their lives were expendible. (Yep, 'cannon-fodder people' even existed in the late 20th century.)

---

quote:

---

So, anyway. He's an atheist. Whilst appreciating and totally agreeing with the Christian theology that we are all sinners who deserve God's wrath, my Father is a good man. Old and frail and ill now, but he's led a pretty good life. He has made my mother happy, he's been good to us as children and he's been a good citizen, volunteering for a number of charities.

---

quote:

---

So, he's going to hell because, like all of us he's a sinner and he's not acknowledged Jesus Christ as his Lord. Doesn't even believe in God. But, at least 'justice' will be done and he'll get what's coming to him.[/qb

---

quote:

---

[qb]I hope that God will allow me to weep in heaven. I hope God will weep.

---

quote:

---

I want to know how this all fits in with a God of Just Wrath. I want to know why my father has to go to hell in order for the world to know right from wrong?

---

quote:

---

Mostly, I want to know why I'm supposed to be happy to be in heaven with a God like this, assuming that God is as you say? Why on earth would I trust a God like this?

---

quote:

---

Your theory works great with Hitler. It doesn't work so good as a theory with my dad. ]If anyone thinks that this post is overly emotive: (a) I will not get angry if you say my father is going to hell, but I do know all the arguements; (b) I think the question of 'Where has my dead loved one gone?' really is one of the most important questions of our faith.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Jolly Jape said:

quote:

---

After all, when we see someone refusing to take a retriubutive action which would, by any account, be quite justified , but rather forgiving, we laud them for their Christ-like-ness, rather than berate them for the injustice of their position.

---

I think it's because we discern obedience to the command of God when a person leaves retribution to him alone; only God is without sin and therefore only God able to dispense penal justce without hypocrisy. In a sense it is like this: a person's sins will be punished in one of two possible ways. The locus of the first is in Christ on the cross; the locus of the second is in hell for eternity.

The point is this: if the offending party were to receive the deserts of their actions now, they would immediately be thrown into hell. But they aren't. This means that God's wrath towards that particular individual is either deferred until judgement or has already been atoned for on the cross. Either way, for us to take vengeance would create a situation of double jeopardy. Therefore, I think that the refusal to take retributive action is not Christlike in its essence; it is Christlike in the sense that it mirror's Christ's submission to the Father's authority as the only Judge. It is a display of patient submission, not emulation.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
But what I want to know is whether, when all these people are put in hell for not being Christians, I'm allowed to weep for them? Will God weep for them?

Or will God say to me, 'You're not allowed to weep in heaven because they got their just desserts.'

This is not a theoreticial question for me. My father is an atheist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
If anyone thinks that this post is overly emotive: (a) I will not get angry if you say my father is going to hell, but I do know all the arguements; (b) I think the question of 'Where has my dead loved one gone?' really is one of the most important questions of our faith.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

quote:

---

The wrath is deferred because He wants to show a better way, revealed most completely in Christ.

---

I think saying that you've found ‘a better way’ in the sense of 'morally superior way' by abolishing God's wrath is sailing close to making an anthropomorphic value judgement against God's self revelation in Scripture: God is described as wrathful in Scripture, surely we cannot simply deny it or dilute it because it makes us uncomfortable?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I don't have a problem with the idea that God has an anger against sin, though whether that is reflected in an anger towards sinners may, I guess, be a bone of contention between us. I would hold that this anger results in forgiveness, since, even apart from its inherent positive nature, even pragmatically forgiveness is the only way of truly dealing with sin.

---

If the same logic were applied to obedience to God’s commands is would impossible to associate a person with their works. Why are we prepared to disassociate people from moral culpability for their sin, but unwilling to disassociate a person from their strivings after righteousness? Using this thinking it would be impossible for God to be pleased or displeased with a person but only with a person’s deeds, righteous or unrighteous. And that, JJ, is what I would call skating on very legalistic ice. God loves his children, not just their deeds: this is the essence of the the gospel of grace is it not? This thinking is, ISTM, anti-relational. And by the same token, is it not fair to say that God can be angry with, and indeed joyous over, people and not just their deeds? Surely the gospel is about the amazing disconnect between how God feels about us (love and wrath) and how God ultimately reconciles himself to us.

---

quote:

---

IMHO, a lot of the problems that arise concerning PSA comes from an overly man-centred conception of the gospel. God is the gospel, in all his love and wrath. The gospel is not ultimately about humanity; it is about God. God is the one who most desires our presence with him, and likewise God is the one who has promised us justice, and I believe that Scripture points to that justice as a penal justice

---

Well that may be true of some, but I honestly don't think that's where the people here are coming from. Far from it - if I had to look for the single defining feature of PSA that I object to most, it would be that ISTM a doctrine which builds God in our own image, incapable of distinguishing what we are from what we do. Put frankly, I think it is insulting to Him, since it has Him behaving in a way that, at our best, humans are capable of surpassing. PSA seems, to me, the anthropomorphic doctrine.

And so, to bed!

[ 22. June 2007, 23:07: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]

--------------------
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)

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, I'm not sure it is on thread - hell may or may not be an issue irrespective of PSA....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm not trying to be funny here - but what is it exactly that you want to weep over? The sense of loss or the sense of injustice? (Or most likely - both)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I ask that question because you seem to be saying that it is unfair that a good man like him be sent to hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Life is not fair. Bad stuff happens to good people, our very being cries out for an 'answer' to this. I'm not being flippant when I say that I put 'hell' in along with these issues - i.e. it is not a qualitatively different question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
I know I still haven't answered your question but I'm wondering what it means to ask whether you will be able to cry in heaven?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Numpty, I heard your answer. Thanks. I'm afraid that I can't 'do' a lot with it. I don't mean this in a nasty way, but it sounds like platitudes to me.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
OK. Although I'd be happy to expand on what I've said if it would help.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

You see, your objections are not theological purely theological objections against PSA, they are moral objections against a picture of God that you find offensive.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I ditched PSA (the model I was taught) because I found it out of sync with the scriptures, and especially with the Gospels, so I agree that what we believe about God is highly likely to impact on our understanding of the Atonement. That seems, to me, to be right and proper.

---

This is also my point of view. PSA ignores most of what Jesus says about salvation and the purpose of His coming, dwelling almost entirely on Paul's comparisons of Jesus' role to the OT sacrifices.

Christus Victor, by contrast, is illustrated on every page. Or so say I.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I ditched PSA (the model I was taught) because I found it out of sync with the scriptures, and especially with the Gospels, so I agree that what we believe about God is highly likely to impact on our understanding of the Atonement. That seems, to me, to be right and proper.

---

This is also my point of view. PSA ignores most of what Jesus says about salvation and the purpose of His coming, dwelling almost entirely on Paul's comparisons of Jesus' role to the OT sacrifices.

Christus Victor, by contrast, is illustrated on every page. Or so say I.

---

Yep.

The conversation goes round and round, doesn't it? I guess I could say that those who insist on retributive justice are railing against the clear and plain teaching of Jesus on the matter of forgiveness.

Anyway....none of this really advances the conversation.

--------------------
"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.)

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
Anyway....none of this really advances the conversation.

---

Sure it does.

Not that the assertions by themselves do much. Sometimes, though, we ask each other to back up what we are saying, and get interesting results.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
I was waiting for someone to say that. I think it has a lot to with 'theories of atonement'. And I think that theodicy has a lot to do with 'theories of atonement'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
As I understand it, PSA says 'Christ died to pay the price for the sins of individuals'. Salvation by grace in this scenario, comes from believing that this payment was necessary and made by Jesus. But there is no grace or mercy beyond that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
Can you expand that? Do you mean that it's 'hell' for a person to be subjected to evil at the hands of human beings? If so, we may be in agreement on this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
Well, I think the picture of God that has been presented in this discussion is a picture of a being who cares more about abstract concepts than in living human beings. It's the picture of a God who doesn't particularly care that a man went through hell in wartime and consequently rejected God. The 'rules' for who is saved and who isn't saved must be obeyed or justice won't be served. So, to hell with him, mercy and grace being attitudes that no longer exist in eternity.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

I think it was JJ who insisted that hell was not relevant to the atonement debate. I was the one who originally wondered if it was relevant - interested to see that you agree.

---

quote:

---

And I can see now why you want to insist that forgiveness does not 'need' anything - for me 'there is no grace or mercy beyond that' caught my eye. You may not be saying this but it comes across as if Christ's death wasn't really necessary. If Christ's death wasn't absolutely necessary then why did he bother? Whether Christ died to allow forgiveness or defeat sin either way there can be no 'heaven' without his death and resurrection. I'm sure you don't mean it this way but to me to speak of grace and mercy outside of the work of Christ devalues that work.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
Well, I think the picture of God that has been presented in this discussion is a picture of a being who cares more about abstract concepts than in living human beings. It's the picture of a God who doesn't particularly care that a man went through hell in wartime and consequently rejected God. The 'rules' for who is saved and who isn't saved must be obeyed or justice won't be served. So, to hell with him, mercy and grace being attitudes that no longer exist in eternity.

---

I don't see it as rules. God offers us the free gift of his love and forgiveness. If we choose to reject him, what else is he supposed to do? Is it possible to talk of coerced grace and mercy?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
You may not be saying this but it comes across as if Christ's death wasn't really necessary. If Christ's death wasn't absolutely necessary then why did he bother? Whether Christ died to allow forgiveness or defeat sin either way there can be no 'heaven' without his death and resurrection. I'm sure you don't mean it this way but to me to speak of grace and mercy outside of the work of Christ devalues that work.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

His wrath He reserves, I believe, for the sin itself, and what it does, not to Him, for sin cannot affect Him, but to us. This seems, to me, to make for relational, rather than anti-relational thinking.

---

quote:

---

Of course, our sins grieve Him. Of course, our faithful obedience makes Him rejoice. But His disposition towards us does not change.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S: I think it was JJ who insisted that hell was not relevant to the atonement debate. I was the one who originally wondered if it was relevant - interested to see that you agree.

---

I don’t always have to agree with JJ.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S: Thanks Seeker I think that strikes at the heart of the matter. And I can see now why you want to insist that forgiveness does not 'need' anything - for me 'there is no grace or mercy beyond that' caught my eye. You may not be saying this but it comes across as if Christ's death wasn't really necessary. If Christ's death wasn't absolutely necessary then why did he bother? Whether Christ died to allow forgiveness or defeat sin either way there can be no 'heaven' without his death and resurrection. I'm sure you don't mean it this way but to me to speak of grace and mercy outside of the work of Christ devalues that work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S: It starts there but it includes 'death after life' too. I think that if you define hell in terms of this life only then your question of 'how can God send good people to hell' still remains ... exactly. .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S: I don't see it as rules. God offers us the free gift of his love and forgiveness. If we choose to reject him, what else is he supposed to do?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S: Is it possible to talk of coerced grace and mercy?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
What I’d like to know is whether you are saying that there is no mercy or grace in God apart from the temporal act of crucifixion? It sounds to me as if you are saying that the crucifixion was God’s one-time act of grace and mercy, never to be repeated? Whereas to me, the crucifixion arises from the character of God. Do you disagree that ‘God’s nature is always and everywhere to have mercy?’ (Book of Common Prayer)

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by infinite_monkey:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
You may not be saying this but it comes across as if Christ's death wasn't really necessary. If Christ's death wasn't absolutely necessary then why did he bother? Whether Christ died to allow forgiveness or defeat sin either way there can be no 'heaven' without his death and resurrection. I'm sure you don't mean it this way but to me to speak of grace and mercy outside of the work of Christ devalues that work.

---

(Jumping in with my own two cents but looking forward to Seeker's response as well...)
Why is any death necessary? I think death, in general, is a necessary result-- perhaps a price, even--of life as defined in this universe. Those are the rules: we play the game.

The death of Jesus was absolutely necessary in the context in which he incarnated--a specific time, a specific place, a Jerusalem that kills the prophets and stones those sent to help it. He knew that his beliefs, actions, and example would get him killed. Those were the rules: he played the game. God, in Christ, loved us enough to still play the game.

To me, PSA sullies His name when it says those were God's rules.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm sure you're fed up of hearing me say this by now, but Christ's death and resurrection, it seems to me, is about fixing the consequences of sin, our ontological slavery to the decay of the law of sin and death. Did Christ need to die for us to be forgiven? No! Did He have to die in order that we could have eternal life? An emphatic yes!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
What I’d like to know is whether you are saying that there is no mercy or grace in God apart from the temporal act of crucifixion? It sounds to me as if you are saying that the crucifixion was God’s one-time act of grace and mercy, never to be repeated? Whereas to me, the crucifixion arises from the character of God. Do you disagree that ‘God’s nature is always and everywhere to have mercy?’ (Book of Common Prayer)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
I hope we’ve established a good enough relationship for me to say that that sounds to me like a shrug of the shoulder which sounds pretty cold. My original question was ‘Does God weep?’ and the answer seems to be *shoulder shrug* ‘What for?’

Because compassion is important? Or maybe not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
It’s possible to try to incorporate grace and mercy as feelings rather than as a legal act (crucifixion) into our theories of atonement and of God. It’s a struggle and a conundrum balancing mercy and grace and justice. But PSA seems pretty eager to make sure that justice is what is achieved and it says that in it’s opening gambit: ‘God must be just, so solve the problem of atonement for justice.’ Maybe I’m doing the same with grace and mercy but, to my mind, I try to incorporate a justice that actually seems meaningful whereas I see PSA having a dry, cerebral, legalistic view of grace and mercy.

---

Posted                      

• The sight of violently shed blood for most people is a profoundly disturbing and nauseating experience. There is something ghastly and repulsive about the spectacle of spilt blood. Anyone who has seen Kill it. Cook it. Eat it would most likely agree with this assertion.
• The sight of human sinfulness for God is a profoundly nauseating and disturbing experience. There is something ghastly and repulsive about the spectacle of human depravity. Anyone who has any insight into the depravity of which humanity is capable would most likely agree with this assertion.
• The shed blood of Christ at the crucifixion is therefore, at least in part, a visual demonstration - an acted parable if you wish - of how revolting, how utterly nauseating, sin is to God. The sin of the world is so nauseating that its presence in Christ (a presence that Christ endured willingly) made him utterly revolting in the sight of Almighty God. So much so that he was utterly forsaken until the death of sin was acheived in the death of Christ.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Universalist:
On the Cross, Jesus shows that He does not merely intellectualize about sin and redemption, but enters our story by entering into His own on the Cross. In a gospel of "attraction" rather than "promotion", God puts his money where his mouth is. He sets the example that we all will eventually follow.

---