Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
That is PSA in all its bloody glory and I'm not ashamed to believe it.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S: I agree that God's nature is always to have mercy, but that his ultimate expression of mercy is in the work of his Son. If we reject the ultimate expression of his mercy then we reject all his mercy. I do not view the death and resurrection of Christ as merely a temporal event, but as the defining point of history - Ephesians 1 encourages me to view all of God's dealings with humanity through the prism of Christ... and Ephesians 1 focuses particularly on what Christ's death and resurrection achieved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S: I know you disagree but I think most of this comes down to rhetoric. As our discussion over God weeping demonstrates there are aspects of God's character that we are keen to keep and emphasise. It often comes across as if we only want one without the other, but (IME) that is a perception and not a reality.

---

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. To gain God, to love and enjoy Him forever, we too must "die to self" that our new, resurrected lives may live in loving relationship with Him, forever. The Cross is God's ultimate example for us--given without engendering shame and guilt; but rather, love.

---

The problem with this is it leaves me wondering how it works for me. I know Jesus conquered death for himself, because he rose again. What assurance do I have that I can follow the same way? (I've not met many other people who came back from the dead. )

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
I still think that there are people out there who are PSA-only. I think they are pastors of churches who are writing blogs and pronouncing biblical anathemas on people who are not PSA-only. I think they are scholars who are writing books suggesting that those who don’t believe in PSA are, at the very best, leading others astray and at the worst possibly damned. And I think they are people in churches I’ve attended who believe this. I think they believe in God’s mercy and grace, but only for the elect.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
An illustration I've heard used to explain why the shedding of blood and sin are so closely related in the economy of salvation goes like this:

• 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.

That is PSA in all its bloody glory and I'm not ashamed to believe it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

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. To gain God, to love and enjoy Him forever, we too must "die to self" that our new, resurrected lives may live in loving relationship with Him, forever. The Cross is God's ultimate example for us--given without engendering shame and guilt; but rather, love.

---

The problem with this is it leaves me wondering how it works for me. I know Jesus conquered death for himself, because he rose again. What assurance do I have that I can follow the same way? (I've not met many other people who came back from the dead. )

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
I still think that there are people out there who are PSA-only. I think they are pastors of churches who are writing blogs and pronouncing biblical anathemas on people who are not PSA-only. I think they are scholars who are writing books suggesting that those who don’t believe in PSA are, at the very best, leading others astray and at the worst possibly damned. And I think they are people in churches I’ve attended who believe this. I think they believe in God’s mercy and grace, but only for the elect.

---

I'm sure there are people 'out there' just like that. I know that there are people writing books and preaching that PSA is a monstrous distortion of God and is a direct cause of evil. To point out either side doesn't help us get anywhere though, does it?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
I don't actually see - as random examples - Joel B. Green or Stephen Sykes or even Steve Chalke for that matter proclaiming that those who believe in PSA are not Christians and are damned. To me, that is a huge, huge, huge difference. Maybe people are so genuinely convinced that those of us who have problems with PSA really aren't Christians and that we really don't love the Lord that they don't think it's inflammatory to de-church us. That, to me, is a huge difference between the way the two sides behave.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
Jonny S

As far as I can see the difference is between attacking the person (ad hominem) and attacking a belief. I thought it was commonly accepted that ad hominem attacks were considered the more extreme.

Luigi

---

That's exactly my point. When you take into account the theological framework of both positions then both sides come across as an ad hominem attack even if they think they are attacking beliefs.

Think about it:

1. 'PSA = cosmic child abuse':Considering the argument is that PSA is encouraging a violent reaction to wrong doing, this argument reads as ... you = a child abuser.

2. 'Non PSA = not a genuine Christian': Feels as if it a personal attack, but is not necessarily any different from 'your Islamic beliefs are incompatible with Christianity'.

I'm not saying that the above two options fully represent the arguments, they are just examples.

Talk of 'you are not allowed to say that someone isn't a Christian' is just a trick some folk use to make arguments about belief sound like ad hominem arguments.

BTW I'd like to remind you that I have never said that CVers etc. are not Christians.

[ 24. June 2007, 21:39: Message edited by: Johnny S ]

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
That is PSA in all its bloody glory and I'm not ashamed to believe it.

---

The violence-loving people are man enough to face the blood so, having accepted PSA, all the violence-loving people are declared to be on the way to heaven.

---

quote:

---

The wimpy namby-pamby girlies who are horrified by a God who would spew his Son's blood everywhere go to hell because in their arrogance they won't acknowledge the seriousness of their sin.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
1. 'PSA = cosmic child abuse':Considering the argument is that PSA is encouraging a violent reaction to wrong doing, this argument reads as ... you = a child abuser.

---

This accusation was made along the lines of 'This theory, stated in that way, makes God look like a child abuser, so therefore I believe the theory is wrong.'

I don't think Chalke even accused God of being a child abuser, but let's say, for argument's sake that he did, I certainly don't think that Chalke or anyone else thinks that people who believe in PSA are child abusers. How could 'Mr. G' requiring the death of his son make you a child abuser?

For the record, I don't think that anyone who believes in PSA approves of child abuse nor do I much less think that they are child abusers. I do, however, get sick of hearing all the 'I'm so strong I can deal with blood and guts and you can't' doggy-do-do.

--------------------
"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 Call me Numpty:
Would you, if at all possible, please refrain from assigning opinions to me that I haven't expressed? So far this thread has been an enjoyable exchange of theological opinion, but the tone of your posts is getting a bit shrill. Can we keep this theological please?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
For the record, I don't think that anyone who believes in PSA approves of child abuse nor do I much less think that they are child abusers. I do, however, get sick of hearing all the 'I'm so strong I can deal with blood and guts and you can't' doggy-do-do.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by infinite_monkey:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
An illustration I've heard used to explain why the shedding of blood and sin are so closely related in the economy of salvation goes like this:

• 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.

That is PSA in all its bloody glory and I'm not ashamed to believe it.

---

A concern I have about that is that it sides God with the disciples who ran away instead of the ones who stayed at the cross.

---

quote:

---

If God can't or won't see past the noxiousness of sin to find his own broken Son in the midst of it, I can absolutely believe that Seeker's dad is screwed. As is mine. As am I.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
For the record, I don't think that anyone who believes in PSA approves of child abuse nor do I much less think that they are child abusers. I do, however, get sick of hearing all the 'I'm so strong I can deal with blood and guts and you can't' doggy-do-do.

---

Absolutely. Please try and empathise with us that supporters of PSA might also tire of hearing the mirror image of such comments. Few people mean their arguments to come across as ad hominem, but they often do.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
1. 'PSA = cosmic child abuse':Considering the argument is that PSA is encouraging a violent reaction to wrong doing, this argument reads as ... you = a child abuser.

---

This accusation was made along the lines of 'This theory, stated in that way, makes God look like a child abuser, so therefore I believe the theory is wrong.'

---

quote:

---

I don't think Chalke even accused God of being a child abuser, but let's say, for argument's sake that he did, I certainly don't think that Chalke or anyone else thinks that people who believe in PSA are child abusers.

---

quote:

---

How could 'Mr. G' requiring the death of his son make you a child abuser?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Jolly Jape said:

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.

---

Are you really saying that God does not feel grief and anger at our sinfulness? Not just our sins, but the condition of heart out of which that sin emerges? Or are you using the word 'affect' in a different way than I understand it? Are you saying that sin and sins do not influence the way God feels? Do you really mean that God is not affected by sin? I know you can't be saying that because you also said this:

quote:

---

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

---

OK. So, you're saying that God's disposition (presumably love) does not change according to our sinfulness and our degree of actual sin. I agree, at least partially. However, I disagree with you if you're suggesting that its is only the works (either good or bad) with which God is pleased: what kind of Father is pleased with his child's work without being pleased who his child is? Likewise, what kind of father is wounded by his child's evil, without being wounded by who the child has become?

I do not think it is possible to make such a strict ontological separation between a person and their actions. A person who sins is a sinner: we are all sinners who sin. If it were we would not need to be saved from our sin. Also, I think that your model of the atonement focusses rather too heavily on sins, and not enough upon sin as a condition of the soul.

I also disagree with the notion that God cannot love a creature and be angry with that creature at the same time. I also disagree with the notion that God's love trumps his justice to the degree that he will impeach himself by offering the divine equivalent of indulgences. Is it not possible that God's judgement always causes him to suffer? Either on the cross in his Son, in his wrath at judgement? I don't think that PSA ever says that God enjoys the dispensation of his wrath; it simply asserts that God's wrath is coming.

---

Obviously, I didn't make a very good job of explaining my position

First, my statement that God is not affected by our sins. What I should probably have written was "God's attitude to us is not changed by our sins." The subtext to this was that I have often heard it said that "God cannot (apart from Christ) look upon you or draw near to you because of your sins/sinful nature". This seems to me completely wrong. If you mean (if we can talk of such a thing) that God's emotional state can be responsive to our behaviour, good or bad, then I suppose that is fair enough. I don't accept, however, that his fundamental disposition towards us is subject to such change.

I don't know whether or not you are a father yourself, Numpty. If you are, I suspect that you are occasionaly disappointed, even dismayed, at your children. On other occasions, you will, no doubt, feel so proud of them that you could burst. But whether they have let you down or done you proud, your disposition towards them will not change. You will still love them. You may be angry at what they do, but will you really be angry at them ? Well, possibly, we none of us are perfect. But it seems to me that anger directed at the child is not about them, but about us. It's the parent saying "why have you done this to me ! Why have you made me so unhappy". Even when we have to discipline our children (as I accept we have to do, just as I accept that God has to do), it should surely be to reflect their needs, not ours.

With regard to whether or not our works "condition" how God feels about us, I would say, again, that God's disposition towards us (you are right in saying that I regard that as love) is unaltered according to whether the things we do please or displease Him. That He feels disappointed with us to a greater or lesser extent I can accept. I have felt the same towards my own children from time to time. But anger is something else. Every time I feel anger at them (as people) I know it's time to hit my knees and repent, because I know that comes from me, from the flesh, not from my union with Christ. To be wounded by one's child is one thing, to respond to that wounding with anger is quite another.

In actual fact, though "hate the sin, love the sinner" is a dreadful cliche, there is a degree of truth in it, at least where God is concerned. The problem is that, when we apply it to ourselves, we don't have His discernment and we end up in hating both.

With regard to my model of the atonement as focussing too much on sins, I find that an extraordinary claim, as I don't really see the atonement as being about sin s at all, but rather about our sinful nature. Sins are dealt with by forgiveness; the ontological change necessary to transform our sinful nature, that is the work of the atonement. Either I haven't understoiod you here, or you haven't understood me.

With respect to whether God's justice causes Him to suffer, and whether that suffering has its apotheosis on the cross, I would say that, yes, it does. However, I suspect that the mechanism that I see at work in this is somewhat different to the mechanism that you see.

To me, God's justice consists of restoring the effects of sin. This is a costly process, and the cost is paid by God in Christ. But it isn't paid to God, and it has nothing to do with sin being punished, or even with judgement, in the sense in which you (I assume) mean the word.

God's judgement on sin is that its power is broken by the forgiveness and obedience of Jesus even to death on the cross. So Yes, sin is judged on the cross, or rather, the cross is the occasion for the announcement of the judgement that God has always had on sin (if you see what I mean). His chosen way of dealing with sin is revealed, rather than acheived, by the cross. But the real work of the cross is in, as Freddy put it, "fixing things", the institution of a new creation where all the offence, all the hurt, all the damage of sin can be unmade. And, as far as humanity is concerned, chief amongst those effects is the decay and bondage which it has wrought over us, the cancer of our slavery to the death principle, which would, unhealed, lead to our destruction. It is this restorative justice, where sin is undone rather than punished, which the cross reveals in Romans 3:25. It is perfectly compatible, ISTM with both love and holiness, and seems, to me, nothing like indulgences.

quote:

---

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:

---

the problem is that Chalke, as I've said, doesn't understand the immense significance of the Trinity in penal substitutionary atonement. His choice of metaphor, however, does contain the rhetorical suggestion that people who hold to PSA are intellectually complicit in a model of the atonement that approves of cosmic child-abuse. People who hold to PSA are not 'comfortable' with idea that God is a cosmic child abuser; we think it is a grotesque distortion of the truth of that particular doctrine.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Again, the problem here is that you accuse God of requiring the death of his Son; he doesn't require the death of his Son. Salvation requires the death of death (sin) and God acheives the death of death in the death of his Son. Sin needed to die because death is the penalty for sin. Death needed to die; Christ volunteered for the mission. Christ became sin for us.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

I don't know whether or not you are a father yourself, Numpty. If you are, I suspect that you are occasionaly disappointed, even dismayed, at your children. On other occasions, you will, no doubt, feel so proud of them that you could burst. But whether they have let you down or done you proud, your disposition towards them will not change. You will still love them.

---

quote:

---

You may be angry at what they do, but will you really be angry at them?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

Again, the problem here is that you accuse God of requiring the death of his Son; he doesn't require the death of his Son. Salvation requires the death of death (sin) and God acheives the death of death in the death of his Son. Sin needed to die because death is the penalty for sin. Death needed to die; Christ volunteered for the mission. Christ became sin for us.

---

I could almost, (and I mean very, very nearly) sign up to that expression of your thought. Replace the word "penalty" with "consequence", and amplify on the last sentence, and I'd be right there!

---

Can we compromise and settle for 'payment' or 'wages'?

Posted                          

quote:

---

According to your way of thinking, if my son does something that pleases me, it's OK for me to take pleasure in what he has done, but it's not OK to take pleasure in the person from whom that deed has proceeded.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Can we compromise and settle for 'payment' or 'wages'?

---

You're on, as long as we don't think too deeply about who pays those wages

Seriously, I don't have that much problem with transactional language as a metaphor for the atonement. I accept that it is biblical. I just think we take it too far, beyond the biblical mandate, if we start speculating on who are the parties to that transaction, and on the nature of the currency exchanged.

--------------------
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:

---

According to your way of thinking, if my son does something that pleases me, it's OK for me to take pleasure in what he has done, but it's not OK to take pleasure in the person from whom that deed has proceeded.

Am I really to believe that the closest connection between he and me are his deeds? Do his deeds stand alone from his personhood? No. I take pleasure in who he is: I rejoice in the heart out of which those deeds have proceeded, not the deeds themselves.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[QUOTE] The fact is that I am totally committed to my children for who they are . This relational position is unchanged whether they please me or disappoint me. To me, to be wrathful at them would be a change in that relational position, and thus not a good thing! That really would be to make my love conditional on their behaviour. The concept of anything they do being sufficient for me to turn my back on them, which, when applied to the God/humankind relationship is what I think is a foundational basis of PSA, is utterly foreign to my thinking as a Father. There is a huge difference between being displeased and being angry. The one is about wanting the best for them, the other about my feelings, my pride, my inadequacy.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

I'm struggling to understand how this view of relationship works out in practice. Are you saying that there is nothing your children can do to harm their relationship with you? Because you only have control over your side of the relationship! A relationship is a two-way dynamic, if it has broken down then whether the 'innocent' party is angry or sad (or both) won't restore the relationship.

---

quote:

---

I agree with your rejection of complete freewill JJ. God has to take the initiative and 'do' something. Perhaps if we replace words like 'angry' and 'sad' with something like 'the will to impose his moral authority on us' then maybe we might be getting somewhere?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I agree, that is precisely why Steve Chalke rejects PSA. However, I think his objection is wrong for a number of reasons. Firstly, because it fails to recognise the self-substitutionary nature of what happened in Christ's sacrifice on the cross. In other words, as an objection, it is sub-Trinitarian, because it requires Jesus to be an unwilling victim. Secondly, it is faulty because it requires a falsely 'child-like' conception of Christ as that unwilling child. Conversely, PSA understands the cross to be an eternally mutual decision - made by co-equal persons - to embark on a specific pre-planned self-sacrificial act.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
People who hold to PSA are not 'comfortable' with idea that God is a cosmic child abuser; we think it is a grotesque distortion of the truth of that particular doctrine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Again, the problem here is that you accuse God of requiring the death of his Son; he doesn't require the death of his Son Salvation requires the death of death (sin) and God acheives the death of death in the death of his Son. Sin needed to die because death is the penalty for sin. Death needed to die; Christ volunteered for the mission. Christ became sin for us.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[QUOTE]Actually, John, I was very specific in saying that nothing they can do can harm my relationship with them. And I think that, by the grace of God, that is true. Of course, they can harm their relationship with me, because relationships, as you point out, are not of necessity reciprocal. And this seems to me an exact parallel of our relationship with God. Nothing we can do can separate us from the love of God, and yet our sins may make a separation between us and God. The point is that the barrier, the separation, is only on our side, not God's. And, of course, it is the "innocent party" who instigates the reconciliation. Perhaps the word relationship is too loaded, and I should go back to my previous use of "disposition", which seems a little too cold, but doesn't have the same reciprocal overtones as relationship.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
My remark was that Steve Chalke was refering to his criticism of a theory rather than to the people who hold that theory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
Secondly, I read the book. I honestly don't think he was attacking academic PSA, although I appreciate that my perception is a matter of perspective. I think he was showing why people who have been put off by this kind of Sunday-school presentation of PSA and told that they aren't Christians if they don't accept it, can still be part of the Christian church.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough - I was trying to say that (IMO) it is impossible to dissect a relationship into 'my relationship to you' and 'your relationship to me'. To use an analogy it is like my daughter building a wall between her and myself and then me claiming that the wall is only on her side!

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

The problem here is that you accuse God of requiring the death of his Son; he doesn't require the death of his Son. Salvation from sin requires the death of death and God achieves the death of death in the death of his Son. Sin needed to die because death is the wages for sin. In the presence of sin, death is alive; in the absence of sin death is dead. Death needed to die; Christ volunteered for the mission: the mission to kill death in and through his death. Christ became sin for us and, in dying on the cross, he accepted the wages earned by the sin that he had become.

---

It's a work in progress...

Could it be that the wrath of God is simply God letting someone die? Or must the wrath of God be the act of God positively killing someone...?

[ 25. June 2007, 14:19: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
OK, here's the revised edition of a previous statement:

quote:

---

The problem here is that you accuse God of requiring the death of his Son; he doesn't require the death of his Son. Salvation from sin requires the death of death and God achieves the death of death in the death of his Son. Sin needed to die because death is the wages for sin. In the presence of sin, death is alive; in the absence of sin death is dead. Death needed to die; Christ volunteered for the mission: the mission to kill death in and through his death. Christ became sin for us and, in dying on the cross, he accepted the wages earned by the sin that he had become.

---

It's a work in progress...

Could it be that the wrath of God is simply God letting someone die? Or must the wrath of God be the act of God positively killing someone...?

---

I could live with that, Numpty. Just don't think it is really PSA.

Perhaps I could clarify things a bit here. I do think we view things slightly differently. I think that we could come up with a form of words which wouldn't press either your hot buttons or mine. I'm not sure that's agreement, but I can live with differences. If I were sharing my faith with someone, and you were passing, I wouldn't hesitate to call you accross and include you in the discussion, because we have enough common ground to work around our differences (and because I know you'd have something worthwhile to say, and I need all the help I can get .)

--------------------
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 Jolly Jape:
Nevertheless, I do think we should read what people actually say, rather than what we hear them saying. I think, regrettably, this shooting from the hip is not confined to the rabid right or the loony left. I very much fear that NT Wright's condemnation of the Jeffrey John lenten talk, issued before he had actually read or heard it, falls into much the same category.

---

Too True.

Although, having read Jeffrey John's lenten talk myself, I would hope that NT Wright's condemnation would have been even stronger when he had read it closely... but we've already 'done' that debate on another thread.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think the difference [Seeker963: between attacking a theory and a person] is merely semantics. I don't think Steve Chalke's statements make him a non-Christian but I think you are making a false distinction between attacking a theory and attacking a person.

Bearing in mind that con-evos define Christians doctrinally then to deviate from their doctrine is to cast yourself outside of the Christian faith (according to them). IMHO both sides are attacking what the other side believes and on both sides it too often collapses into ad hominem arguments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
You are right, Steve is no theologian, but precisely for that reason he should be more circumspect about what he puts in print.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
He has had plenty of time and opportunity to clarify in the way you suggest and had pointedly refused to do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Are you still so certain that the fight is entirely of the con-evos making?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:


However, is it not possible to also concieve of the Father watching the Son die and, while having the power to save him, chooses to let him die because he knows that the Son's death is draining the sting of death thereby killing something that he hates, namely death. Is it not also possible to see the Father rejoicing in the Son's sacrifice, being satisfied that what he hates (the sin) is dying; and anticipating the victory of raising the Son to life?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
I think that my point is that the con evos are attacking the character of those who disagree with them. As, by definition, they would do since they genuinely believe they know that they have the only way to salvation. I also think that this is part of a broader agenda that is not just restricted to theories of atonement.

I read Joel Green's book ages ago, so I'd have to look at it again, but I don't actually remember him attacking anyone. I remember him as just putting forward a non-PSA theory of atonement. Maybe my perception is wrong. (I mention him because someone cited his book as being the book that 'started the debate' on the liberal side in the US; I can't remember if it was you or someone else.)

---

Your last post helped me to understand a bit more, but I'd like to explore this issue a bit further.

What I was trying to say earlier was that while there is a difference between attacking ideas and attacking people, in practice the distinction is very hard to maintain. For example, if a conevo has an objective view of the atonement then not only their salvation but their very identity is caught up in Christ's work for them. Therefore to attack that understanding feels very personal indeed. I know this cuts both ways, but they feel they have so much more to lose!

I think you think ( ) that I'm trying to score points with this argument. I'm not. I'm not trying to win you over to a more con position but to give you an insight into how the other side 'feels' about the debate. If you define the Christian faith doctrinally then any perceived attack on doctrine is, by definition, very personal. When you think you are discussing ideas you are (it appears to others) attacking them and their salvation. That is probably ridiculous to you, but it is my guess that is how many people feel.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
OK, here's the revised edition of a previous statement:

quote:

---

The problem here is that you accuse God of requiring the death of his Son; he doesn't require the death of his Son. Salvation from sin requires the death of death and God achieves the death of death in the death of his Son. Sin needed to die because death is the wages for sin. In the presence of sin, death is alive; in the absence of sin death is dead. Death needed to die; Christ volunteered for the mission: the mission to kill death in and through his death. Christ became sin for us and, in dying on the cross, he accepted the wages earned by the sin that he had become.

---

It's a work in progress...

Could it be that the wrath of God is simply God letting someone die? Or must the wrath of God be the act of God positively killing someone...?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
What I was trying to say earlier was that while there is a difference between attacking ideas and attacking people, in practice the distinction is very hard to maintain. For example, if a conevo has an objective view of the atonement then not only their salvation but their very identity is caught up in Christ's work for them. Therefore to attack that understanding feels very personal indeed. I know this cuts both ways, but they feel they have so much more to lose!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think you think ( ) that I'm trying to score points with this argument. I'm not. I'm not trying to win you over to a more con position but to give you an insight into how the other side 'feels' about the debate.

---

I don't actually think you're trying to 'score points.' I do appreciate that you're trying to give me an insight into how the other side feels and I readily admit that I don't understand it.

But also understand that I spent my entire life in this environment until 1999. And I constantly got messages that sounded to me like 'We're not going to listen to your point of view. We don't care what you think. Your point of view is wrong and bad.' A kind of theological version of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and going 'La! la! la!' very loudly. And I will readily admit that these were good people. Just don't talk about religion with them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you define the Christian faith doctrinally then any perceived attack on doctrine is, by definition, very personal. When you think you are discussing ideas you are (it appears to others) attacking them and their salvation. That is probably ridiculous to you, but it is my guess that is how many people feel.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

I think you are making a false distinction between attacking a theory and attacking a person.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
What I'm getting at is this: Christ is the agent of death's death, because Christ became the locus of our sin. The wages of sin is death; the death of sin effects eternal life. Therefore, Christ's death kills sin and gives birth to eternal life. I'm thinking of 1 Cor 15.56 here, where death is likened to a scorpion, perhaps hidden in a shoe. The sting of death is sin. In other words, the means by which death administers its poison is through the sting of sin. However, the way that Christ kills death is by willingly getting stung by sin thereby draining death of its poison.

This I think is Christus Victor.

However, is it not possible to also concieve of the Father watching the Son die and, while having the power to save him, chooses to let him die because he knows that the Son's death is draining the sting of death thereby killing something that he hates, namely death. Is it not also possible to see the Father rejoicing in the Son's sacrifice, being satisfied that what he hates (the sin) is dying; and anticipating the victory of raising the Son to life?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
Jonny S said:If a distinction between attacking what someone believes and attacking the person themselves cannot be made then ALL arguments are in fact ad hominem. As far as I can tell you have are claiming that the ad hominem distinction that is used to properly define most debate, is meaningless.

Is that what you believe?

Luigi

---

No.


...


Oh, I expect you want me to explain that too?

There is a distinction, but it is not always a very clear one. Sometimes, but not always, I think some people sail close to the wind in making it look as if all their arguments are not ad hominem, when most of them are.

ETA - I should add that I'm not talking about anyone of this thread!

[ 26. June 2007, 08:56: Message edited by: Johnny S ]

Posted                       

quote:

---

There is a distinction, but it is not always a very clear one. Sometimes, but not always, I think some people sail close to the wind in making it look as if all their arguments are not ad hominem, when most of them are.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

I think I could go along with that. In your terms, I would say that Christ is not just the locus of our sin, but of all sin on the cross, making the distinction between sin(s) and the sinful nature. I would certainly agree with the scorpion analogy, and I think that that reinforces the difference between sins, and the consequence of sin.

I have no difficulty at all with the concept of the Father and the Son willing together that the Son should die in order to defeat death.

---

quote:

---

Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!

For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
With regards to the sub-thread about con-evo perceptions (actually, a small subset of conevos, typically (in the UK) of the Reform stripe), like Seeker963 I am stuggling to understand how one can equate saying "I think your view of the atonement is sub-optimal" with "You have placed yourself outside the christian camp", or, worse imv, "what you are saying is the result of wishful thinking brought about by an unwillingness to accept the seriousness of sin".

---

I think you are right in that the second is clearly an ad hominem attack, and thus I'm not trying to defend it. However, the first is not as clear cut as it first appears. Whether this is a primary or secondary matter is the moot point. If you are conevo and believe that a certain atonement mechanism is how you are saved then to attack that mechanism is (so it may feel) to attack one's very salvation. I know that you are not saying that but I'm trying to show what it can feel like to some. If I'm saved by (what I believe) the Apostles teach about the cross then if I'm wrong my entire salvation is undermined. Again, you have to enter the mindset of those whose definition of Christianity is 95% doctrine.

I am painfully aware of how Christians (especially Evangelicals) fall out over every little thing. However, if there was one thing that was central to our faith is it not the work of Christ in his death and resurrection? I have no desire to court disagreement but if there was one thing 'worth' falling out over wouldn't it be this?

As I read Church History I really struggle with the Reformation period. All these people killing themselves over doctrine, I can't understand it. The question that keeps bugging me is this - is it that we have gained compassion or lost conviction? (For what it's worth my answer is both.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
If I had to pick out one thing which I believe is the source-problem with theological debate between Reform-type con-evos and others as regards the atonement, it is that they have an unhelpful amount of certainty.

Let me unpack that a little. I am not saying that to have certainty about one's own beliefs is a bad thing. I'm all for conviction theology, and I hold it myself. But what tends, IME, to be the case is that there is little room for the concept of the genuine, honest mistake. The argument goes "Because I feel so certain that my views are correct, they must self evidently be correct. Because they are obvious to me, they must be obvious to everyone else." There is little room for the idea that someone else might be honestly mistaken.

---

After my post above you may be surprised to hear that I entirely agree with you! There is little willingness to admit that we are often mistaken. My constant frustration is that those who claim to be heirs of the Reformation do not want to be reformed. An interesting question to ask someone who is 'reformed' is this: "If God is constantly speaking to you through his word, then when was the last time you changed your mind about anything?"