Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
As I have said previously, I always thought the biggest 'advantage' of PSA was that it stressed personal responsibility for sin. (It is not just 'sin' that Jesus destroys, he dies for my sin.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
I came across a great US bumper sticker quoted in the press this week - "The Christian right is neither!"

---

Well, I can agree with that.

--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)

Posted                      

quote:

---

...Numpty, but what you seem to be saying that "God's wrath against sin" is merely a shorthand for "His implacable opposition to sin, and His desire that it be brought to an end, coupled by His dynamic ability to bring about that end", or something like that.

---

quote:

---

Thus, we tend to say "God's desire is that sin be punished", but Numpty might well stand that on its head and say, "God's desire (which, therefore implies God's action) is that sin be destroyed, and we can define that destruction by the word punishment.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
If one wants to use that concept to assure someone of God's love for them, fine. If one wants to use it to make another person feel bad, then one should take care s/he is not trying to make a person feel bad who already feels sorry for her sins.

---

That is the case whatever view of the atonement you have.

I meet plenty of people who don't need anyone to tell them how bad they are, but I meet just as many who simply cannot see themselves as sinners. Isn't it great that the gospel speaks directly into all our lives?

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
If one wants to use that concept to assure someone of God's love for them, fine. If one wants to use it to make another person feel bad, then one should take care s/he is not trying to make a person feel bad who already feels sorry for her sins.

---

That is the case whatever view of the atonement you have.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I meet plenty of people who don't need anyone to tell them how bad they are, but I meet just as many who simply cannot see themselves as sinners. Isn't it great that the gospel speaks directly into all our lives?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
However, as you have said, the point of PSA is to emphasise personal responsibility for sin, not personal salvation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
I still feel sad (I hope not bitter) that I came pretty darn near to not being a Christian at all because I thought The Bad News of Jesus Christ was that God loved the elect and hated me.

---

What is the connection with PSA?

BTW - how did you know (for certain) that you weren't one of the elect?

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The weakness of your hermeneutic is that it requires the imposition of an extra-biblical theology (in the proper sense of the word) that is based on little more than moral objections to God's self-revelation in Scripture.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

---

quote:

---

John 10:10 The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.

John 8.34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.

---

quote:

---

Micah 6.7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams,
Ten thousand rivers of oil?
Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression,
The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

Hosea 6.6 For I desire mercy and not sacrifice,
And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 9:13 "But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

Matthew 12:7 "But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless."

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Essentially, your moral presuppositions concerning the nature of God disallow a conclusion that can be supported by Scripture in favour of a conclusion that requires an extensive revision of conceptual categories.

---

I feel as though I have somehow gotten through the looking-glass.

PSA, in my opinion, does exactly what you are saying by denying something that is taught everywhere in Scripture - that people can change their ways and be obedient to God.

It replaces this clear and universal concept with a tortured system of wrath, retribution, payment and imputation. The result of which is that people somehow do not need to change their ways and be obedient to God - these things are expected to happen after the person is saved.

The moral presuppositions I am talking about are biblical. The problem with PSA is that it contradicts the Bible as a whole in favor of a few scattered statements.

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

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Consequently, Scripture itself, because it cannot be reconciled to what, IMO, is an overly anthropomorphic moral theology, is laid open to revision and censorship on the basis of a extra-scriptural intellectual-theological meta-narrative.

---

Sorry, but this is such a great statement that it deserves comment.

Scripture can absolutely be reconciled to what you are calling an overly anthropomorphic moral theology. The God of Scripture can absolutely be reconciled as just, fair, and merciful, not to mention omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

In my view, however, nothing is more anthropomorphic than picturing God as a divine ruler who is upset with the human race and wants to punish them, yet who is somehow satisfied by an alternative plan.

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

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
I still feel sad (I hope not bitter) that I came pretty darn near to not being a Christian at all because I thought The Bad News of Jesus Christ was that God loved the elect and hated me.

---

What is the connection with PSA?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
BTW - how did you know (for certain) that you weren't one of the elect?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
The connection with PSA is that PSA makes the idea that 'everyone is responsible for their own sin' front and centre.

---

But we are all responsible for our own sin - I thought we had all agreed on that?

If you are saying that the cross emphasises other things as well then we are right back to (what I also thought we were all agreed on) the fact that we need to have a balance of all atonement models.

BTW -
I had a flick through the book 'Pierced for our transgressions' last week (didn't buy it since I can guess what it will say ) and went straight to their bit on 'only PSA'. There was a paragraph which was 100% clear (I didn't write it down in case I was arrested for shoplifting ) that the writers do not want only PSA, but PSA alongside other models. This PSA only thing seems to be an urban myth... ummh ... interesting.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
But we are all responsible for our own sin - I thought we had all agreed on that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
BTW - I had a flick through the book 'Pierced for our transgressions' last week (didn't buy it since I can guess what it will say ) and went straight to their bit on 'only PSA'. There was a paragraph which was 100% clear (I didn't write it down in case I was arrested for shoplifting ) that the writers do not want only PSA, but PSA alongside other models.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
This PSA only thing seems to be an urban myth... ummh ... interesting.

---

Right, Johnny. I left a congregation for an urban myth. I did not experience what I experienced and I did not have the conversations I had. Whatever.

--------------------
"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:
In my second objective, I think I've failed because clearly there is a denial about what is going on. The mantra seems to be 'What the scholars believe about PSA, so too do all the people in the pews believe about PSA.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
For myself personally, I don't really know what more mileage there is to be had from this conversation. I don't want to huff or or take the last word and then disapper. I thank everyone for their good-natured discussion and I will try to be available if anyone thinks they need further communication for me to end well. For the moment, though, I think I need to retire from this thread.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
But why do such innovative re-interpretations of Scripture always apply to the bits that make us uncomfortable?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
No-one is suggesting that God's love, for example, should be demoted to a general but wholly impersonal benevolence towards that which he has created. Why do the same with an attribute, namely the wrath, of God because is less philosophically 'appealing'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Also, it bears repeating that I also think that PSA tends to engage with each attribute of God as revealed in Scripture without attempting to artificially place them in antithetical opposition to each other. So for example, your hermeneutic is based on the idea that love is the antithesis of penal justice. I'm not sure that is is.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Maybe it's time to take stock and summarise where the agreements and disagreements between the various positions are. I'll work on that, and hope to get back to y'all later.

---

I would appreciate that, JJ.

I can't help but think that Christus Victor is being misunderstood, or not fully explained, on this thread.

We seem to be drawn relentlessly into discussion of PSA instead.

--------------------
"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 Call me Numpty:
The weakness of your hermeneutic is that it requires the imposition of an extra-biblical theology (in the proper sense of the word) that is based on little more than moral objections to God's self-revelation in Scripture.

---

I see what you mean. However I don't think that you are correct here. I am in no way making moral objections to God's self-revelation in Scripture.

While I said that the ideas that "God must punish sin" and that "death, or blood, is the price of sin" are indeed found in the Bible, I don't mean that you have to rely on extra-biblical reasoning to see how foolish PSA's take on these things is. The Bible itself explains it.

The Bible is the source of the idea that God loves everyone and that retribution is wrong:

quote:

---

Matthew 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

---

Our Father in heaven loves every person. Sin is what punishes us, not God:

quote:

---

John 10:10 The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.

John 8.34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.

---

Sin is what enslaves and destroys life, not God's punishments. Obedience to God protects us from sin, whereas disobedience exposes us to its ravages.

The idea that death, or blood, is the price of sin is taught in the Bible, but the meaning is that sin kills. If you get involved with sin the result is that you die spiritually - not as the price exacted by God but as the toll exacted by sin. The foolishness of thinking that God is somehow satisfied by sacrifices is clearly taught even in the Old Testament:

quote:

---

Micah 6.7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams,
Ten thousand rivers of oil?
Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression,
The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

Hosea 6.6 For I desire mercy and not sacrifice,
And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

---

The same concept is repeated in the gospels;

quote:

---

Matthew 9:13 "But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

Matthew 12:7 "But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless."

---

The whole point is to get people to change their ways, not to have a sacrifice that will satisfy God. Jesus is repudiating the need for satisfaction of this type.

So from Jesus' lips neither God's requirement of punishment, nor the requirement of blood for sin, hold up. This is not an extra-biblical theology.

These things are spoken of throughout the Bible as imagery, for the sake of comparison and understanding, not as literal explanations of how God works.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

But what he is saying is what I did. You have a premise that is xtra scriptural, viz that God is loving only, there is no place for his 'wrath' if you like. My point has always been that scripture speaks clearly itself. It doesn't need the gloss of our preconception.

---

quote:

---

If you see metaphor where the context doesn't allow it your tits get majorly tangled.

---

quote:

---

If you do this you let the word change your thinking rather than insist on bending it out of shape to mean what you want it to.

---

quote:

---

However, as I said way back I challenge anyone to show Paul was not a PSA man to the core.

---

quote:

---

I simply think you CV guys have a huge axe to grind. I'd accept CV if I thought for a moment it made sense of the atonement. In my mind it doesn't. It excuses us for our sin and makes a circuit round the mechanism of salvation that the scripture clearly teaches. It does this by saying that Christ defeated evil by love but stops short of explaining any mechanism by which this could affect us personally.

---

quote:

---

In CV terms there is no conversion really, only a mental assent to a perfect life that we should all emulate.

---

quote:

---

In PSA, WE are on the cross too, our sin is crucified, judged, we are redeemed, renewed and recreated in a likeness of the divine. There is a judgement of the old and a rebirth of the divine nature. In John when Jesus spoke to Nicodemus he asserted that the only way in was radical recreation. In CV, to my mind there IS no radical recreation. There is only an admiration of perfection from a distance.

---

quote:

---

All of the comments Jesus made about forgiveness make no sense without PSA.

---

quote:

---

I can only forgive as I am forgiven and I can only be forgiven because my King died in my place, took the judgement due to me. Not one of you have effectively refuted PSA.

---

quote:

---

You have just asserted a construct that strokes the scripture to make it acceptable to your fallen humanity. (and mine). And if someone has the temerity to disagree they are judgemental and intolerant!

---

quote:

---

The issue to my mind here is the burden of proof. You are taking a line with CV that sidesteps God's judgement of sin and sinfulness. Scripture clearly does not take this line if read consistently and literally. Refute this if you can Gal 3:13 "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law having become a curse for us.."

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
PSA says that you can't repent of your sins and change your ways in order to be forgiven...

This is not an approach that emphasizes repentance and ammendment of life.

---

The whole point of PSA is that repentance is at its very heart. Every time I sin I am aware that Christ suffered for that sin because of his love for me. What greater motivation for repentance and a changed life is there?

I simply do not recognise your depiction of PSA Freddy. It's not even a caricature, it bears no resemblance at all.

I think we need JJ's summary to move this forward. Come on JJ, where is it?

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
PSA says that you can't repent of your sins and change your ways in order to be forgiven...

This is not an approach that emphasizes repentance and ammendment of life.

---

The whole point of PSA is that repentance is at its very heart. Every time I sin I am aware that Christ suffered for that sin because of his love for me. What greater motivation for repentance and a changed life is there?

I simply do not recognise your depiction of PSA Freddy. It's not even a caricature, it bears no resemblance at all.

I think we need JJ's summary to move this forward. Come on JJ, where is it?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
]Mea culpa. I'll try to get it organised. It's just that a) I'm very busy atm, and b) I don't want to misrepresent anyone's position, so there's quite a lot of cross-checking involved. I will get round to it, though - honest!

---

No hurry. I'm sure we can wait. I just meant that I'm not sure we're getting anywhere at the moment and the only way to move forward would be some kind of summary that we can take as a starting point.

However, I know what 'busy' is, so you take your time!

Posted                       

• Most people believe that PSA is often not taught well in our churches, and PSAers are often keen to divide popular presentations of PSA from a truely biblical understanding of the doctrine. The degree to which PSA is a stumbling block in churches is hotly debated.

• There is still some dispute between those who see salvation as being inextricably bound to forgiveness, and those who see forgiveness as non contingent on the Paschal event. Those holding that view generally do not see God as constrained (by either His own character or external concepts of justice) to deal with sin in any particular way. They hold, typically, that the atonement is concerned not with moral but rather pragmatic considerations - how can God "fix it" such that the ontological problem of our sinful nature can be solved.

• There is a middle way, suggested by Numpty, whereby the cross is held to demonstrate the effectiveness of God's prior forgiveness. Forgiveness is not dependant on the cross, as such, but the cross reveals and releases the power of that forgiveness.

• There is some dispute as to whether or not CV treats sin seriously enough, with the pros arguing that forgiveness is a more radical and effective way of dealing with sin, and the contras arguing that a "just forgiveness" schema could be seen as unjust. On reflections, I think that the reason why many PSAers are suspicious that CV downplays sin is because it does not address sin as specifically as does PSA. I wouild argue that it implies a very serious view of sin, but it does not stress that serious view in the same way as does PSA

• Underlying this is a dispute about the nature of justice, whether God's justice is retributive, restorative, or a combination of the two.

• Also in dispute is the nature of God's wrath - is it directed against sin, or against sin and sinners. Is it even a concept which can be said to hold up in the light of the revelation of Jesus. Some hold that God's wrath is merely man's perception of God based on anthropomorphic ideas, in effect, people in the Bible trying to make sense of the world around them in the context of both a theistic world-view and partial revelation. Others see this viewpoint as denying a side of God's character which they see clearly portrayed in scripture.

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
PSA says that you can't repent of your sins and change your ways in order to be forgiven...

This is not an approach that emphasizes repentance and amendment of life.

---

The whole point of PSA is that repentance is at its very heart. Every time I sin I am aware that Christ suffered for that sin because of his love for me. What greater motivation for repentance and a changed life is there?

I simply do not recognise your depiction of PSA Freddy. It's not even a caricature, it bears no resemblance at all.

---

quote:

---

13. We affirm that the righteousness of Christ by which we are justified is properly his own, which he achieved apart from us, in and by his perfect obedience. This righteousness is counted, reckoned, or imputed to us by the forensic (that is, legal) declaration of God, as the sole ground of our justification.
We deny that any works we perform at any stage of our existence add to the merit of Christ or earn for us any merit that contributes in any way to the ground of our justification (Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8–9; Titus 3:5).

14. We affirm that, while all believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and are in the process of being made holy and conformed to the image of Christ, those consequences of justification are not its ground. God declares us just, remits our sins, and adopts us as his children, by his grace alone, and through faith alone, because of Christ alone, while we are still sinners (Rom. 4:5).
We deny that believers must be inherently righteous by virtue of their cooperation with God’s life-transforming grace before God will declare them justified in Christ. We are justified while we are still sinners.

---

Posted                       

Being an American thingy I've not come across this agreement before, but it seems pretty 'kosher' to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
These affirmation and denials say to me that repentance and change of life are not the basis for salvation, but rather faith alone, apart from any cooperation on our part with God's life transforming grace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
It seems to me that this is not an approach that emphasizes repentance and amendment of life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
PSA says that you can't repent of your sins and change your ways in order to be forgiven.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

• Most people believe that PSA is often not taught well in our churches, and PSAers are often keen to divide popular presentations of PSA from a truely biblical understanding of the doctrine. The degree to which PSA is a stumbling block in churches is hotly debated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

• There is still some dispute between those who see salvation as being inextricably bound to forgiveness, and those who see forgiveness as non contingent on the Paschal event. Those holding that view generally do not see God as constrained (by either His own character or external concepts of justice) to deal with sin in any particular way. They hold, typically, that the atonement is concerned not with moral but rather pragmatic considerations - how can God "fix it" such that the ontological problem of our sinful nature can be solved.

• There is some dispute as to whether or not CV treats sin seriously enough, with the pros arguing that forgiveness is a more radical and effective way of dealing with sin, and the contras arguing that a "just forgiveness" schema could be seen as unjust. On reflections, I think that the reason why many PSAers are suspicious that CV downplays sin is because it does not address sin as specifically as does PSA. I wouild argue that it implies a very serious view of sin, but it does not stress that serious view in the same way as does PSA

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

• Also in dispute is the nature of God's wrath - is it directed against sin, or against sin and sinners. Is it even a concept which can be said to hold up in the light of the revelation of Jesus. Some hold that God's wrath is merely man's perception of God based on anthropomorphic ideas, in effect, people in the Bible trying to make sense of the world around them in the context of both a theistic world-view and partial revelation. Others see this viewpoint as denying a side of God's character which they see clearly portrayed in scripture.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

I'd like to put these two issues together. IMO PSA 'takes sin seriously' in that it makes me personally and morally responsible for it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Fair summary JJ. One key issue in this for me would be the best translation of 'hilasterion' in Paul and John.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Thanks JJ. Really helpful in clarifying the discussion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

• Most people believe that PSA is often not taught well in our churches, and PSAers are often keen to divide popular presentations of PSA from a truely biblical understanding of the doctrine. The degree to which PSA is a stumbling block in churches is hotly debated.

---

This is one area I would appreciate looking at further. Seeker and I did not see eye to eye on this because she referred to lots of bad experiences (as described above) but I wanted to discuss it at the level of literature etc. I concede that 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating' and thus the test of PSA must be how it appears at the popular level, however it seems grossly unfair to me to discuss a topic based on personal experience - how do we assess how uniform one person's experience is? A few people posting on a board is hardly representative!

IMHO we have to discuss a view from the level of Internationally recognised spokespeople / theologians / writers or we'll end up beating straw men / women / people.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Afghan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Fair summary JJ. One key issue in this for me would be the best translation of 'hilasterion' in Paul and John.

---

That's easy enough...

As far as I know, hilasterion is only ever used in the Septuagint to refer to the covering of the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies. So it can only refer to the sin offering offered on Yom Kippur. No other sacrifice was brought into the Holy of Holies. Nobody even entered the Holy of Holies at any other time.

The real question, I guess, is the purpose of this sacrifice? What does it signify? It seems to me slightly problematic for PSA that Christ is equated with the hilasterion and not with the scapegoat (except in the non-canonical Epistle of Barnabas).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
How about "the place where mercy is appropriated"? Is it another of those words for which the English translation carries with it a subtext not present in the original language. Propitiation, ISTM, is commonly used as if its meaning was "placation".

---

quote:

---

For he thought, "I will pacify him with these gifts I am sending on ahead; later, when I see him, perhaps he will receive me."

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Pastorally, I think the biggest problem with PSA is that it tends to reinforce, rather than confront the very legalism that it makes claim to supplant.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
PSA says that you can't repent of your sins and change your ways in order to be forgiven.

---

It was this quote from you previously that I couldn't recognise. PSA states that it is not your repentance that saves you (but Christ's death and resurrection) but your above statement does not necessarily follow from that. Indeed I couldn't see anything in that 'agreement' that implied it either.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven."

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
John and Freddy I think that there is a language problem here. I have been aware that it has been present but unnoted. I'm not really sure about the substantive issue, but I've been in discussions with Freddy before, where my use of fairly standard (to me) evo language has drawn a strong reaction. In turn, Freddy's language has seemed to me close to a Pelagian position. And yet Freddy always stresses the vital importance of God's grace, and the standard evo position stresses the necessity of turning away from sin, so there is at least a sizeable dollop of semantics here.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Afghan:

As far as I know, hilasterion is only ever used in the Septuagint to refer to the covering of the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies. So it can only refer to the sin offering offered on Yom Kippur. No other sacrifice was brought into the Holy of Holies. Nobody even entered the Holy of Holies at any other time.

The real question, I guess, is the purpose of this sacrifice? What does it signify? It seems to me slightly problematic for PSA that Christ is equated with the hilasterion and not with the scapegoat (except in the non-canonical Epistle of Barnabas).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
And the answer is: 'Certainly, it doesn't happen, because that's a misunderstanding of PSA'. So my experience is invalid because it doesn't fit with theory.

---

I thought we'd been here before.

No one is denying that it happens - the question under discussion is whether it is due to PSA or not? Is it due to bad theology well applied or good theology applied badly?

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

I don't disagree that repentance is stressed in evangelical churches. The doctrine itself, however, does not make repentance a necessary pre-requisite for salvation.

I understand the reasoning for that, which is that we don't want to see repentance as a "work" that saves us rather than Christ. Nevertheless, it devalues the importance of repentance, since salvation does not hinge on it.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
It depends what you mean by a pre-requisite. (Hence JJ's comment about the language we use.) Is a willingness to receive it a prequisite of a free gift?

Yes / No. The offer of a free gift has no pre-requisite but I cannot gain it without 'receiving' it.

---

quote:

---

Mark 1:15 "Repent, and believe in the gospel.”

---

quote:

---

Luke 24:47 "that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

---

Is this what you understand PSA to teach? I thought that PSA did not include our cooperation as a necessary pre-requisite to our reception of the freely offered gift of salvation.

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

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
And the answer is: 'Certainly, it doesn't happen, because that's a misunderstanding of PSA'. So my experience is invalid because it doesn't fit with theory.

---

I thought we'd been here before.

No one is denying that it happens - the question under discussion is whether it is due to PSA or not? Is it due to bad theology well applied or good theology applied badly?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Isa 53:4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
Isa 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

---

quote:

---

Isa 53:10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes [3] his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Why is this problematic for PSA? From my Hebrew (a little rusty admittedly) 'kpr' refers to a sacrifice offered in order to bring about forgiveness - i.e. the basis of forgiveness.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Afghan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Why is this problematic for PSA? From my Hebrew (a little rusty admittedly) 'kpr' refers to a sacrifice offered in order to bring about forgiveness - i.e. the basis of forgiveness.

---

Yeah, I think that's right. The best analogy I can think of for kpr is buying flowers for your wife when you're in the doghouse. But that's just the impression I get from looking at the different contexts it's used in. I'm a very amateur Hebraist!

The problem is not that it is that hard to fit the idea of the chataath to PSA. It is that the very same chapter - Leviticus 16 - offers a far better metaphor had Paul wanted to communicate that idea - the goat of Azazel. But he doesn't use it. Nobody uses it apart from the writer of the Epistle of Barnabas. The canonical texts all refer to Christ as the goat of chataath and not the goat of Azazel.

I certainly don't think it's a killer argument against PSA. But it seems a little awkward (to me) that Paul eschewed an obvious parallel and instead emphasised conciliation rather than scapegoating.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Is this what you understand PSA to teach? I thought that PSA did not include our cooperation as a necessary pre-requisite to our reception of the freely offered gift of salvation.

---

As I said, it depends on how you use the word 'pre-requisite'. Our salvation is entirely based on the finished work of Jesus Christ, and not at all on our 'works', not even the 'work' of repentance. However, in order to receive the gift we have to admit that we need it in the first place. Repentance is our response to the gospel.

You shouldn't be so shocked by all this - it is classical reformed theology. After all what was Martin Luther's first thesis nailed to that famous door?

In case you've forgotten :

quote:

---

When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said "Repent", He called for the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.

---