Posted                       

quote:

---

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?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
...except that no-one on either side of the argument has suggested other than that we are saved by His death and resurrection. What is the subject of debate is the precise mechanism by which the Paschal event acheives that end result, basically, how it works. Often, it seems like the whole conversation is punctured repeatedly by the anti-PSAers having to refute unfounded claims that they don't believe in the salvific efficacy of the Cross and Resurrection.

---

Precisely. Oh, I'm going to give in and:

For me, the 'soundbite' of the gospel is 2 Corinthians 5:19: In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. (Before anyone tells me to check out the context, my comments apply also to the context.)

For me, the ultimate aim of atonement is reconciliation between God and humanity. If those of us who are reconciled with God cannot reconcile ourselves with others in the church, then what have we got? We say that reconciliation is at the heart of what we believe and then we turn the Gospel message into 'I'm reconciled and you're not.' Ironic in the extreme and also tragic.

--------------------
"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:

---

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.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
You seem to be describing a very brittle faith and explains a great deal. (It quite possibly explains why so many conevos are extremely defensive.) You almost seem to be doing Richard Dawkins job for him.

Speaking for myself a faith that can't ask difficult questions of itself is one that I can't hold to.

Luigi

---

Now it is my turn to become frustrated!

No one seems to be engaging with conevos as conevos. Some do have very brittle faith and therefore your comments are valid for them Luigi - but could equally apply to many across Christendom of all types.

I'll try again.

If you define salvation in strict doctrinal terms (as opposed to the 'hand waving' of CV - I'm not trying to be disparaging here because I like a lot of CV but I'm struggling to find another way to put it ) then any deviation from the definition is going to raise hackles. JJ may be right in some of his criticisms of conevos but it is hardly surprising that they are defensive when what they hold dear is felt to be under attack.

If you feel that, in and of itself, writes conevos off then so be it.

But before you dismiss them completely here is something to chew over from another angle:

Throughout the gospels and the NT there is a repeated warning about 'false teachers' and 'false prophets'. The common NT theme is that such false teachers are found within the church. I think there is a case for saying that it is one of the dominant themes of the NT.

Now, bearing that warning in mind, how do we put it into practice? I would argue that there are two extremes to avoid. The first is a kind of McCarthyism that attacks anyone 'not like us' as a liberal out to sell our faith down the river. However, the other (equal danger), is to (in the name of intellectual debate and discussion) refuse ever to denounce any teaching as 'false'.

I am certainly not saying that 'attacking PSA makes you a false teacher'. Again, I fully concede that conevos are far too ready to 'get out the matches'. I'd rather put the question the other way round - how do you put into practice the many, many NT warnings about false teachers within the church?

[ 26. June 2007, 20:27: Message edited by: Johnny S ]

Posted                       

quote:

---

I'm not trying to be disparaging here because I like a lot of CV but I'm struggling to find another way to put it ) then any deviation from the definition is going to raise hackles. JJ may be right in some of his criticisms of conevos but it is hardly surprising that they are defensive when what they hold dear is felt to be under attack.

If you feel that, in and of itself, writes conevos off then so be it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
I think I am phrasing what I say a little more carefully than you are recognising.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
IME almost all humans I've ever met don't like what they hold dear to be attacked.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
You have stated that because of the way that conevos think / believe, when you attack what they believe you are attacking them personally. (Or at least they are likely to percieve you as attacking them personally.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
Finally your question about false teaching is an interesting one and one that I think has to start with the question of what false teaching is? If we cannot discern false teaching then how can we deal with it? If we cannot for the reasons you have already mentioned challenge vigorously an established way of thinking without it being dismissed as an ad hominem attack then how can we work out what false teaching is? Or do we just go along with the particular group we have fallen in with?

---

Apologies if I wasn't clear. I think we've lost the context of the overall thread. I'm not asking for attacks on PSA to be dismissed as ad hominem - as you rightly say, how can we discern the truth other than through robust debate? I was merely trying to give a window into why many conevos react so strongly to attacks on PSA. The doctrine of the atonement is very dear to them... although I think I have realised that in so doing I've, in part, derailed the discussion!

Better we focus on CV and models of atonement, me thinks!

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
No one seems to be engaging with conevos as conevos.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'd rather put the question the other way round - how do you put into practice the many, many NT warnings about false teachers within the church?

---

Posted                       

I think we cross-posted here. So I'll just pick up on one thing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
I just try to follow the teachings of Jesus as best I can... And I remember that Jesus said the wheat and the chaff will grow together and that it's very probable that sometimes I will be chaff, but sometimes I will be wheat...

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

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.

---

Paradoxically indeed. Did Jesus ever make a statement to this effect, other than an oblique reference to "ransom"? Is this based on anything more than a particular view of Isaiah 53?

Fundamentally, what kind of God would behave this way? What does a punishment like this really accomplish?

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.

---

I don't think that this is true. There are very many references to Jesus' blood and most of them imply nothing of of the kind. We are to drink His blood. We are to wash our robes in it. How is that about blood payment?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamat:
Sorry to differ Freddy but read Heb 9,10,11 without CV glasses. The blood is clearly a ransom, a payment, a price and yes, a penalty.
You could always talk to Paul when you get to heaven but I'd say that all NT writers from whom we get our systematic theology, Paul, Peter, and the Hebrews writer Took the ransom sacrifice aspect of Christ's death as one of the absolute fundamentals of the Gospel they preached. Heb 9:15 "A death has taken place for theredemption of transgressions that were comitted..."

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mirrizin:

quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamat:
Sorry to differ Freddy but read Heb 9,10,11 without CV glasses. The blood is clearly a ransom, a payment, a price and yes, a penalty.
You could always talk to Paul when you get to heaven but I'd say that all NT writers from whom we get our systematic theology, Paul, Peter, and the Hebrews writer Took the ransom sacrifice aspect of Christ's death as one of the absolute fundamentals of the Gospel they preached. Heb 9:15 "A death has taken place for theredemption of transgressions that were comitted..."

---

Or were they just trying to spin the crucifixion to fit the cultural context of a Hebrew audience so that they would understand it in their sacrificial culture?

Did Paul use the same language when he was preaching to the gentiles?

Speaking as a gentile by bloodline, I'm not sure why I should have to take part in this whole "blood sacrifice" thing.

Even the ancient Hebrews didn't expect the Gentiles to offer up sacrifices. Why should we have to accept them?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

The fundamental thinking of Paul was the reconciliation of the Jewish scriptures with the advent of the messiah and what was signified, as well as what it meant behaviour-wise. Essentially, it was the 'new creation' that became possible through the inner transformation of our motives which was his push. However, it is like describing the taste of chocolate cake without eating it if you haven't really experienced it. I know that Christ has changed me..still a work in progress of course but there have been fundamental motivational changes which can only be supernatural. I say this not to judge anyone else, but to account for my conviction about Christ, sin, the blood, the ransom and all that. To address your point, it is a change that transcends culture and the NT writers were not into cultural spin. They were bursting with the energy of a truth revealed through Christ's advent, death and resurrection.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Jolly Jape said:

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.

---

Great! Now here comes the but... But, how does this model of the atonement, which I accept as perfectly valid and doctrinally 'sound' account for the following verses:

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!

---

Yes, I acknowledge that in this passage it is Christ's resurrection life that 'saves', but nonetheless it does say that it saves from God's wrath.

It is worth noting the parallelism in these verses. Justification is linked with blood; reconciliation is linked to death; enmity is linked with reconciliation; reconciliation is effected by death; salvation is from God's wrath and so on.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think we cross-posted here. So I'll just pick up on one thing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
I just try to follow the teachings of Jesus as best I can... And I remember that Jesus said the wheat and the chaff will grow together and that it's very probable that sometimes I will be chaff, but sometimes I will be wheat...

---

I'd agree with you up to a point - Jesus, Paul, John and Peter all talked about people who were false teachers, not just ideas.

---

quote:

---

Being wrong can be forgiven: it is insisting on being right that confirms our being bound in original murderous sin.

---

quote:

---

The heart of sin is…the persistent refusal to tolerate a sense of sin, to take responsibility for one’s sin, to live with the sorrowful knowledge of it and to pursue the painful way of repentance.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

originally posted by Seeker963:

I still want to know what you think 'engaging with conevos as conevos' looks like in Real Life? You throw out these provocative statements and then don't follow up on them. Are you ready to answer this question?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The natural meaning of the phrase is that he would like to engage with conevos on their own territory of biblical interpretation. I don't know if that's what John means though. The problem is, though, that biblical interpretation often means their biblical interpretation, which is somewhat circular with their beliefs.

---

Riiiight. Let me try to record what I've heard. I've heard 'Conevos genuinely believe that to diagree with their view of atonement is to be a non-Christian, so it's natural for them to call you a non-Christian.' I agree.

Then I heard 'Since Conevos genuinely believe that there is one way to salvation and it's their understanding, any expression of a different idea will be seen not only as a different idea but also as a personal attack on them.' I actually agree that many conevos see it that way although I disagree with the statement myself.

So it appears to me that the only way to engage with a conevo on the conevo's grounds is to convert to their way of thinking or just try not to speak with them about theology. There is no other way of engaging them as far as I can see.

How do you talk to someone who thinks that having a different idea is a personal attack. And doesn't condoning this attitude give an awful lot of credence to those who think that religion is dangerous?

--------------------
"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:

So it appears to me that the only way to engage with a conevo on the conevo's grounds is to convert to their way of thinking or just try not to speak with them about theology. There is no other way of engaging them as far as I can see.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
It's true of a lot (but by no means all) conservative evangelicals in my experience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
The sad thing is, I've never cracked the conundrum of how one does actually engage. Still no idea.

---

Nor me.

--------------------
"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 universalist:
George MacDonald, on the other hand, posited a different kind of "good news":

"It is impossible for anyone to see God as He is, and not love him".

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mirrizin:
I don't think it's possible to write anything without some cultural spin. I would think that any contemporary pastor worth his or her salt would know a lot about communicating the bible through modern language and idiom. You can only speak to people from what they understand and hope to bring them to a new understanding.

That doesn't mean that the language used must be taken literally for all times and all places, IMO. We're not in a culture that practices animal sacrifice anymore, and most people see that as an improvement.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

The fundamental thinking of Paul was the reconciliation of the Jewish scriptures with the advent of the messiah and what was signified, as well as what it meant behaviour-wise. Essentially, it was the 'new creation' that became possible through the inner transformation of our motives which was his push. However, it is like describing the taste of chocolate cake without eating it if you haven't really experienced it. I know that Christ has changed me..still a work in progress of course but there have been fundamental motivational changes which can only be supernatural. I say this not to judge anyone else, but to account for my conviction about Christ, sin, the blood, the ransom and all that. To address your point, it is a change that transcends culture and the NT writers were not into cultural spin. They were bursting with the energy of a truth revealed through Christ's advent, death and resurrection.

---

But you see, Jamat, I could just have readily posted what you have just written. No, really. Without my fingers crossed. And so could Mirrizin, or John, or Seeker963, or Numpty or any other of the posters here (dunno, there may be a couple of atheist lurkers, but, hey..). We all have testimonies to the transforming power of Christ. We all bear witness to the truth and efficacy of the Paschal event. I could just as easily say that my experience of Christ is proof that Christus Victor (i.e. the belief that I hold dearly) is "the authentic Gospel ™". No-one is doubting your sincerity or your faith, but you must also realise that others have sincerity and faith too, but they have, prayerfully and sincerely, come to a different opinion on how the Atonement works; one which they think is a better match to the Biblical data, and which has much to offer to the church.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by mirrizin:

quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamat:
Sorry to differ Freddy but read Heb 9,10,11 without CV glasses. The blood is clearly a ransom, a payment, a price and yes, a penalty.
You could always talk to Paul when you get to heaven but I'd say that all NT writers from whom we get our systematic theology, Paul, Peter, and the Hebrews writer Took the ransom sacrifice aspect of Christ's death as one of the absolute fundamentals of the Gospel they preached. Heb 9:15 "A death has taken place for the redemption of transgressions that were comitted..."

---

Or were they just trying to spin the crucifixion to fit the cultural context of a Hebrew audience so that they would understand it in their sacrificial culture?

---

quote:

---

Deuteronomy 7:8 The LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Deuteronomy 9:26 Your people and Your inheritance whom You have redeemed through Your greatness, whom You have brought out of Egypt with a mighty hand.

Nehemiah 1:10 Now these are Your servants and Your people, whom You have redeemed by Your great power, and by Your strong hand.

Isaiah 50:2 Is My hand shortened at all that it cannot redeem? Or have I no power to deliver? Indeed with My rebuke I dry up the sea, I make the rivers a wilderness;

Jeremiah 32:21 You have brought Your people Israel out of the land of Egypt with signs and wonders, with a strong hand and an outstretched arm, and with great terror;

Jeremiah 50.34 Their Redeemer is strong; The LORD of hosts is His name.
He will thoroughly plead their case,
That He may give rest to the land,
And disquiet the inhabitants of Babylon.
35 “ A sword is against the Chaldeans,” says the LORD,
“ Against the inhabitants of Babylon,

Joel 2:11 The LORD gives voice before His army, For His camp is very great; For strong is the One who executes His word. For the day of the LORD is great and very terrible; Who can endure it?

Isaiah 49.25 Thus says the LORD:
“ Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away,
And the prey of the terrible be delivered;
For I will contend with him who contends with you,
And I will save your children.
26 I will feed those who oppress you with their own flesh,
And they shall be drunk with their own blood as with sweet wine.
All flesh shall know
That I, the LORD, am your Savior,
And your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.”

Isaiah 59.16 He saw that there was no man,
And wondered that there was no intercessor;
Therefore His own arm brought salvation for Him;
And His own righteousness, it sustained Him.
17 For He put on righteousness as a breastplate,
And a helmet of salvation on His head;
He put on the garments of vengeance for clothing,
And was clad with zeal as a cloak.
18 According to their deeds, accordingly He will repay,
Fury to His adversaries,
Recompense to His enemies;
The coastlands He will fully repay.
19 So shall they fear
The name of the LORD from the west,
And His glory from the rising of the sun;
When the enemy comes in like a flood,
The Spirit of the LORD will lift up a standard against him.
20 “ The Redeemer will come to Zion,
And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob,”

---

quote:

---

Isaiah 35:4 Behold, your God will come with vengeance,
With the recompense of God;
He will come and save you.” ….
8 A highway shall be there, and a road,
And it shall be called the Highway of Holiness.
The unclean shall not pass over it….
But the redeemed shall walk there,
10 And the ransomed of the LORD shall return,
And come to Zion with singing,

---

quote:

---

Isaiah 43:3 For I am the LORD your God, The Holy One of Israel, your Savior; I gave Egypt for your ransom, Ethiopia and Seba in your place.

---

quote:

---

Hosea 13:14 “ I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O Death, I will be your plagues! O Grave, I will be your destruction! Pity is hidden from My eyes.”

---

quote:

---

Matthew 12:29 Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.

Luke 11:21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace. But when a stronger than he comes upon him and overcomes him, he takes from him all his armor in which he trusted, and divides his spoils.

Matthew 21:41 “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.
42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:
‘ The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the LORD’s doing,
And it is marvelous in our eyes’?
43 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. 44 And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by universalist:
[quote]You really think God is surprised and revolted at our destructive antics and moral failures?

---

quote:

---

Jesus never seemed to be.[/qb]

---

quote:

---

[b]And how long must we insist that people can be threatened, brow beaten, scared and shamed into "accepting Jesus"?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

OK, here goes:

Firstly, Romans 5:9 does not actually have the words "of God" in it at all. A better translation would be "how much more shall we be saved from wrath (or, from indignation) by Him". The "the ...of God" is actually an interpretation inserted by the translators. The meaning is clearly that Christ is saving them from something unpleasant, but whether that is the purposeful, deliberate punishment that would be inflicted by God were it not for Christ is not demonstrated by this verse.

---

quote:

---

God's pleasure is not so much in the suffering of the Son, considered in and of itself, but in the great success of what the Son would accomplish in his suffering.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
John Piper writes:

quote:

---

God's pleasure is not so much in the suffering of the Son, considered in and of itself, but in the great success of what the Son would accomplish in his suffering.

---

Yes, God the Father ordained the suffering; Gethsemane is proof enough of that. But the satisfaction that God derived in forsaking the Son was the anticipation of future victory not in the savouring of temporal pain.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by universalist:
The term, "wrath of God" needs to be cleared up.

Objectively, there IS no wrath of God. The wrath of God exists only in the mind of the unbeliever, put there by Christians who do not understand the character of God. This has taken the form of "official" church doctrine and creed, sometimes in abusive sermons. "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" by JE comes to mind...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

originaly posted by Jamat:
I do not doubt your sincerity. Doesn't mean I back your theology.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

originally posted by Numpty:
However, I do wonder if this sentence might help clarify the PSA position concerning the Father's 'pleasure' (see the BCP Eucharistic Prayer!) in the crucifixion. John Piper writes:

quote:

---

God's pleasure is not so much in the suffering of the Son, considered in and of itself, but in the great success of what the Son would accomplish in his suffering.

---

Yes, God the Father ordained the suffering; Gethsemane is proof enough of that. But the satisfaction that God derived in forsaking the Son was the anticipation of future victory not in the savouring of temporal pain.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
John Piper writes:

quote:

---

God's pleasure is not so much in the suffering of the Son, considered in and of itself, but in the great success of what the Son would accomplish in his suffering.

---

Yes, God the Father ordained the suffering; Gethsemane is proof enough of that. But the satisfaction that God derived in forsaking the Son was the anticipation of future victory not in the savouring of temporal pain.

---

But that still leaves us with the question: 'Why is the Father pleased?'

---

quote:

---

Isn't the whole point of PSA to give the answer: 'Because a price must be paid and the Father won't forgive until that price is paid?'

---

quote:

---

Piper's statement actually makes total sense in my model of atonement, which includes a moral example.

---

quote:

---

But PSA just comes back to the wrath of the Father, doesn't it?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, because that's genuinely how I understand it.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
[A more relevant question is what the Old Testament means by "ransom" and "redemption." The prophecies of redemption usually portray it as something that takes place by force rather than payment:
So Jesus will ransom us from hell, and He will do it by His blood, but He will do it like a soldier who overcomes the enemy, who liberates us by His efforts and destroys the enemy:

quote:

---

Hosea 13:14 “ I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O Death, I will be your plagues! O Grave, I will be your destruction! Pity is hidden from My eyes.”

---

How is He ransoming us? By fighting for us.

This surely is paying a price, but the price is not payed to God or the devil. It is the price of effort and sacrifice for a noble cause.

I don't think that it is right to read Hebrews 9, 10 and 11 without keeping this imagery in mind. I wouldn't call this "CV glasses." The imagery is too pervasive and consistent throughout Scripture. PSA is more selective. So it ends up misconstruing the meaning of terms such as sacrifice, blood, ransom, redemption, deliverance, and even words like intercession, the concept of the bearing of sins, and penalties. [/QB]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
But you have already decided what your bottom line is Freddy and you are trying to rationalise it from the scriptures.

---

quote:

---

In fact the word means to buy back from pawn as you know. It does not mean to take by force.

---

quote:

---

The blood is a price paid for our spiritual lives and you must not beg the question about who it is paid to. A cost is owed to God for our sin, Christ paid it thereby redeeming us, end of story.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The Father forsakes the Son, allowing him to die, because his settled opposition and animosity towards sin (not the Son, but sin in the Son) is being satisfied. God is satisfied by the suffering of the Son in the sense that the Son's suffering is the means by which sin and death are destroyed thereby leaving no object for God's wrath.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The Father forsakes the Son, allowing him to die, because his settled opposition and animosity towards sin (not the Son, but sin in the Son) is being satisfied. God is satisfied by the suffering of the Son in the sense that the Son's suffering is the means by which sin and death are destroyed thereby leaving no object for God's wrath.

---

Could I just ask you to clarify what you mean here. Are you saying, as you seem to be, that the Father turning away from the Son is just another way of phrasing, "The Father allows the Son to proceed with His mission unto death (rather than rescuing Him), and that the "driver" as it were, is that sin is destroyed?

---

quote:

---

If this is the case, I could certainly agree with you. However, it is an interpretation that I haven't heard before. More usually, IME, the Father is seen by PSAers as turning His back on the Son because he has "become Sin", and God cannot abide to look on sin, etc etc, that is, it is a moral, rather than a pragmatic imperative that leads God to "turn His back" on Jesus.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
In fact the word means to buy back from pawn as you know. It does not mean to take by force.

---

Well the English word "redeem" does indeed mean "to buy back". I don't know what the Hebrew word translated as "redeem" is, but Freddy has clearly shown, from the scriptures, that it was commonly used to cover all events where something that is rightfully yours is recovered, regardless of whether that is by force or by transaction. Your insistance that this is not so sounds remakably like that of which you are trying to accuse Freddy, viz, reading in the scriptures that which you want to find there.

---

Thank you JJ.

I understand where Jamat is coming from, and I don't want to be guilty of making the Bible conform to my preconceived notions.

That's the point of quoting actual passages. And not one but many. If I am misquoting, missing context, or misunderstanding the passages, then I'm sure someone can point this out. If more passages actually support what Jamat is saying, then it should not be hard to demonstrate this.

But, Jamat, you are not demonstrating anything.

The word "redeem" is a common one in the Bible, and it is often used in the sense of buying something back. But it is more frequently used in the sense of saving or rescuing someone through strong actions. "Ransom" is a less common word, but I think the quotes I provided show that it is used in the way that I have said.

Jamat, if you disagree why not show that I am wrong rather than accusing me of seeing the Bible through CV glasses. Are you sure that you are not just seeing it through PSA glasses?

My opinion is that the Bible is remarkably consistent and rational when it comes to these types of issues. There is nothing hard about looking at word usages that it does and does not support.

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

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I kind of hate to jump in here after so many people have been discussing this in such an admirably Purgatorial fashion--I feel like an intruder--but...I don't read anything at all in scripture that would suggest that Jesus was killed by God, which seems to me to be the implication of PSA.

---

quote:

---

He was killed by the anti-God forces (the Romans and their collaborators). Is anyone actually suggesting that the legionnaires who put him on the cross were God's executioners

---

quote:

---

...inflicting the punishment that was due to all humanity? I really can't get my mind around that one.

---

Even the enemies of God become the lackies of God from the perspective of his eternal plan and purposes. Hard to grasp, yes, unbelievable, no.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The Father forsakes the Son, allowing him to die, because his settled opposition and animosity towards sin (not the Son, but sin in the Son) is being satisfied. God is satisfied by the suffering of the Son in the sense that the Son's suffering is the means by which sin and death are destroyed thereby leaving no object for God's wrath.

---

Could I just ask you to clarify what you mean here. Are you saying, as you seem to be, that the Father turning away from the Son is just another way of phrasing, "The Father allows the Son to proceed with His mission unto death (rather than rescuing Him), and that the "driver" as it were, is that sin is destroyed?

---

Yes, I think I am, with the proviso that God's wrath (his settled animosity toward sin) is propitiated in and through its expiation. In this sense the expiation effected by Christ's death is the means by which God's wrath against sin is satisfied. Yes, Christ became sin and yet was sinless. Therefore God's wrath against the sin in Christ did not make the Father hate the Son, but it did necessitate the Father allowing the sinless Son he loved to die a substitutionary death.

quote:

---

If this is the case, I could certainly agree with you. However, it is an interpretation that I haven't heard before. More usually, IME, the Father is seen by PSAers as turning His back on the Son because he has "become Sin", and God cannot abide to look on sin, etc etc, that is, it is a moral, rather than a pragmatic imperative that leads God to "turn His back" on Jesus.

---

Pragmatic no; hedonistic, yes. God turned away because the temporary grief of separation from the Son would propitiate his wrath against the sin which the Son was voluntarily destroying. God's motive was future oriented in the sense that it anticipated future joy derived from the union of himself with sinners that he had already chosen from eternity to forgive.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I kind of hate to jump in here after so many people have been discussing this in such an admirably Purgatorial fashion--I feel like an intruder--but...I don't read anything at all in scripture that would suggest that Jesus was killed by God, which seems to me to be the implication of PSA.

---

Yes, but God (F,S,&HS) is sovereign and had planned the death of the Son from eternity.

quote:

---

He was killed by the anti-God forces (the Romans and their collaborators). Is anyone actually suggesting that the legionnaires who put him on the cross were God's executioners

---

In a sense yes, as Peter (recorded by Luke) in Acts 2.22-24, particularly verse 23, points out.

quote:

---

...inflicting the punishment that was due to all humanity? I really can't get my mind around that one.

---

Even the enemies of God become the lackies of God from the perspective of his eternal plan and purposes. Hard to grasp, yes, unbelievable, no.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I think that the Father is pleased because, in and through his Son, what he hates is being killed. Therefore the Father chooses not to save the Son despite his infinite love for him. The Father forsakes the Son, allowing him to die, because his settled opposition and animosity towards sin (not the Son, but sin in the Son) is being satisfied. God is satisfied by the suffering of the Son in the sense that the Son's suffering is the means by which sin and death are destroyed thereby leaving no object for God's wrath.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
No. The Father has already passed over sin (i.e. forgiven sin Ps 31.1 ) before the Son is crucified because his desire to forgive takes priority over his commitment to dispense justice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Therefore, the crucifixion does not 'release' the Father to forgive: rather, it justifies the Father's prior act of forgiveness.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Seeker963 said:
I'm trying to understand whether you're representing 'standard PSA' here. I think that most PSAers would say that the Father's prior act of forgiveness was done in the foreknowledge of the crucifixion having satisfied his wrath, not that the crucifixion justified a prior act.

---

quote:

---

For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

---

quote:

---

If you are representing 'standard PSA', then I'm trying to understand what the differences might be between your theology and mine.

---

quote:

---

At the moment, unlike JJ, I can't even see the small differences between what you believe and what I believe. Your citation of God's prior forgiveness in the Old Testament is exactly the sort of evidence I'd use for my view that 'God just forgives'; and it's a concept that most PSAers seem to disagree with vehemently.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I think you have observed correctly reagrding God's forgiveness, but have concluded incorrectly regarding what PSA says about that prior forgievness. God most certainly could forgive prior to the cross; and the cross most certainly is not the means by which an unforgiving God becomes forgiving.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
On the contrary, the cross is the means by which the Son vindicates the Father's prior forebearance by removing the offense (sin) and accepting the wage (death). He does this by taking that which the Father hates (sin) and killing it in and through his own death. This is what John Owen called, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. The cross can therefore be said to have cost the Father dearly (John 3.16) but at the same time to have satisfied his wrath against sin completely. This is because Christ on the cross was at once the object of God's absolute and unwavering love and the means by which God's wrath against sin was fully and completely satisfied and the wage (death) fully received..

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
From the point of view of a philosopher, PSA has the 'advantage' of including God's hatred of sin in the model. However, I think God's hatred of sin is present in Jewish and in Christian theology prior to the historic development of PSA such that it does not have to be incorporated into a model of atonement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
I think I shall simply remain perplexed and resigned to being de-churched by the vehement right.

---

I came across a great US bumper sticker quoted in the press this week - "The Christian right is neither!"

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
My understanding of PSA (conservative evangelical) is this: the cross vindicates the scandal of God's forebearance. In other words, God willingly lays himself open to a charge of injustice and complicity with sin by forgiving sinners....

...the cross is the means by which the Son vindicates the Father's prior forebearance by removing the offense (sin) and accepting the wage (death). He does this by taking that which the Father hates (sin) and killing it in and through his own death. This is what John Owen called, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. The cross can therefore be said to have cost the Father dearly (John 3.16) but at the same time to have satisfied his wrath against sin completely. This is because Christ on the cross was at once the object of God's absolute and unwavering love and the means by which God's wrath against sin was fully and completely satisfied and the wage (death) fully received..

---

• 1. God must punish sin.

• 2. Death, or blood, is the price of sin.

Posted                       

quote:

---

2. Death, or blood, is the price of sin.
Again, while this is definitely stated and demonstrated in the Bible, PSA badly misconstrues it. The idea that God's wrath can be satisfied by death is as primitive as the idea that He is pleased by the smell of burnt offerings. A better understanding is simply that sin is self-destructive. Its death is neither a payment to God nor a punishment from Him, but simply the consequence of its own self-extinguishing conatus. This is why God warns us away from it, not because it upsets Him.

---