|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Christus Victor
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
Numpty,
quote:
Christ did not become a rapist: never.
Would you say the same about this quote from Luther:
"...He sent His Son into the world, heaped all the sins of all men upon Him, and said to Him: “Be Peter the denier; Paul the persecutor, blasphemer, and assaulter; David the adulterer; the sinner who ate the apple in Paradise; the thief on the cross. In short, be the person of all men, the one who has committed the sins of all men. And see to it that You pay and make satisfaction for them."
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
You know a reoccurring theme that I am hearing here from a number of posters in the PSA camp is the inability to imagine any other model besides PSA, and the inability to comprehend CV.
That should tell us something.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
You need to understand that there is the way a word is used in common English, and then there is how it is used in theology. A good example is the word "satisfaction". In common usage today it means "gratification" as in the Rolling Stones song. However this is not what it means in a theological context. There it means "compensation" or "restitution". I am here using the term "substitution" as it is classically defined in its theological sense. I am not making up the definition, nor am I being "pomo", that is just simply what the term means and has meant for a long time in this particular theological context.
Er no, you need to understand how English language works. Your 'satisfaction' illustration is a good one - it has changed its meaning but when theologians use it, it is accepted that the historic meaning of the word is being used. That way there can be continuity of discussion between the past and now.
However, you are not doing that with 'substitution'. As I have said before, I'm quite happy for the discussion of substitution to continue - perhaps we have got it wrong in the past. But there is a slight of hand going on when a term is now used to mean something completely different to what it used to mean. Then it is a time for some integrity and a new term.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I never said they did. I merely stated the context of my statement which you had responded to.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) Threads like this quickly fall apart if we continue discussions we are having with other people into the one we are having on the thread.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Go right ahead. Please give references as to where the quote is from.
I'm just going out, but I'll give you some quotes later.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
I could equally ask you what answer you think the Church Father's would give to the following question - "Does God punish sinners?"
They would say sinners deserve punishment, but God desires mercy.
So how is that incompatible with PSA?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Numpty,
quote:
Christ did not become a rapist: never.
Would you say the same about this quote from Luther:
"...He sent His Son into the world, heaped all the sins of all men upon Him, and said to Him: “Be Peter the denier; Paul the persecutor, blasphemer, and assaulter; David the adulterer; the sinner who ate the apple in Paradise; the thief on the cross. In short, be the person of all men, the one who has committed the sins of all men. And see to it that You pay and make satisfaction for them."
I would say the following: 'Where does that quote come from?'. I'd say this because, having read Luther before, I'm aware that his arrguments are not easily reducible to soundbites. Luther's arguments tend to accumulate in force over many paragraphs, even pages. Furthermore, his style of argumentation is often to make a provocative statements, like the one you've just quoted, that contain only half of his argument. He then qualifies that provative statement to a series of subtle qualifications and clarifications. So, my initial reaction to your quote from Luther is this: yes, it does look like Luther is saying that Christ became a rapist. However, I'm fairly convinced that if one reads further on into his argument he will have anticipated and refuted that mistaken assumption.
[ 12. July 2007, 09:17: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
(reluctantly raises head above parapet)
Numpty and Sharktacos, I wonder if you are not talking past each other on this. Numpty, I don't think that Sharktacos is saying that Jesus actually became a sinner on the cross, but rather that he bore there the whole of the human condition of alienation from God, that is, into Him was poured all the consequences of our fallenness. He "felt" (to use an inappropriately touch-feely term) the shame and guilt of the rapist and the sense of violation of the victim, because they are both part of the experience of mankind - albeit at the more extreme end of the spectrum. That's sort of how I read what he's saying.
(ducks back behind parapet)
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
However, you are not doing that with 'substitution'. As I have said before, I'm quite happy for the discussion of substitution to continue - perhaps we have got it wrong in the past. But there is a slight of hand going on when a term is now used to mean something completely different to what it used to mean. Then it is a time for some integrity and a new term.
But we do use the idea of substitution in this way, in contemporary english. As I see it, Christ does indeed die instead of us, the important part of it is that it is our role he is substituting. He takes our place, because we are not able, not strong enough, so to speak, to deliver the necessary victory. A bit like a football substitution, where a crocked player (us) is sustituted by Ronaldo in order that the winning goal might be scored. Of course, the winning goal, in this case, was to die in order to achieve that victory. It is impossible for us to have done that for ourselves, so our role is substituted by Christ, who was indeed able to win that victory. Think of this nuance of substitution as a synonym for "champion" (in the chivalric sense).
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by David Castor:
quote:
However, he did say at one point that the 'son of man came to give himself a ransom for many.' Quite PSA in a sense don't you think?
Actually, if anything, this quote seems to endorse CV. The idea that God could hold himself to ransom is rather silly, in my opinion.
In paying a ransom for many, Jesus was accepting a transference of sin onto himself which was undeserved.
But moral culpability for sin cannot justly be laid upon Christ unless the guilty party is also united with Christ. Penal substitution makes no sense whatsoever unless it rests upon the union of sinners with Christ in his death.
[ 12. July 2007, 09:52: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But we do use the idea of substitution in this way, in contemporary english. As I see it, Christ does indeed die instead of us, the important part of it is that it is our role he is substituting. He takes our place, because we are not able, not strong enough, so to speak, to deliver the necessary victory. A bit like a football substitution, where a crocked player (us) is sustituted by Ronaldo in order that the winning goal might be scored. Of course, the winning goal, in this case, was to die in order to achieve that victory. It is impossible for us to have done that for ourselves, so our role is substituted by Christ, who was indeed able to win that victory. Think of this nuance of substitution as a synonym for "champion" (in the chivalric sense).
Thanks for the clarification. My comments about subtitution were not in response to you since, as you explain above, you still maintain a sense of 'instead of' and you have made that clear from the beginning. However, Sharktacos seems to be going further and removing all sense of 'instead of', and hence removing substitute from the word substitution!
My discussion with you is over exactly what that substitution means. I'm quite happy to see that we both hold to substitutionary atonement but you remove the penal element. I'm not so sure (unless I have misunderstood his posts) that Sharktacos still holds to substitution in any meaningful way.
For what it is worth I agree with Numpty's description of PSA.
Perhaps it comes down to rhetoric. Maybe some from the CV side feel that PSAers have claimed too much historical support in the past. However, no one is going to win any friends by trying to turn it into some great PSA conspiracy.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
CV ..... is about God overcoming evil and liberating us out of its bondage.
And precisely how this occurs is the problem bit if you take away the idea that Christ was judged in our place
Isn't this the key to the whole issue?
It seems to me that the example of Christ's temptations in the wilderness answers that question.
Christ subdued the devil by refuting his suggestions and remaining in perfect obedience to the Father. Multiply those victories by thousands and you have Christ overcoming the power of darkness.
The idea is that Christ's encounters with evil, in the form of "the devil", the "power of darkness", the "prince of this world", and even those in this world who challenged and opposed Him, actually had a permanent effect.
When Christ's combats were over those powers were effectively subdued - meaning that people were no longer spiritually under their dominion but were free to choose good or evil.
The implication of this is not universalism, but the freedom to choose.
Furthermore, the means that Christ used were the teachings that He spoke. This is how He refuted the devil, how He opposed the Jewish leaders, and how He led, and fed, the multitudes. As these words remain with us, His power to fight for us also remains. The implication is that we use these truths in the same way, and overcome evil in our own lives by His power by living by these truths. This is how God's power works in us - not by our own strength but by His.
This is how we were, and are, liberated from bondage.
By contrast, how does Christ being judged in our place really help?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
On the subject of the the historical understanding of the atonement and PSA. The following quote by Howard Marshall puts it much more eloquently than me (from a paper of his on the Atonement):
quote:
It is sometimes alleged that the doctrine of penal substitution effectively dates from the Reformation and was virtually absent or unformulated earlier. However, a distinction must be made between the existence of the doctrine and its position. The doctrine of penal substitution may not be prominent before the Reformation, but this is quite different from saying that it was unknown. Thus, while Green and Baker can show how great stress is laid on the doctrine of recapitulation in Irenaeus, they also rightly point out that Irenaeus includes statements of propitiation. Irenaeus, like other early Christian theologians is concerned both with the deliverance of sinners from their sin and also with the mending of their relationship with God. Similarly Blocher gathers together patristic and other pre-Reformation statements which show that the doctrine was certainly held but was not central.{1} Further evidence from Origen, Cyril of Alexandria and Augustine is supplied by Boersma.{2} If the doctrine was not central in patristic and mediaeval theology, then that maybe hangs with the general tendency to misunderstand the grace of God that T. F. Torrance rightly detected as occurring from an early stage,{3} and that was not put right until the Reformers brought the church back to the New Testament.
{1} H. Blocher, ‘Biblical metaphors and the doctrine of the atonement’, JETS 47:4 (Dec. 2004), 630-631.
{2} H. Boersma, Violence, Hospitality and the Cross; Reappropriating the Atonement Tradition Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 19, 158-163.
{3} T. F. Torrance, The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1948).
...
So, as I keep saying no one is claiming PSA only. If all that is claimed is that PSA has claimed a dominance that is not warranted then fine, so be it. However, if the desire is to remove PSA all together then I'm still not convinced there is anywhere near sufficient biblical or historical evidence to do so.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Actually, John, I do wonder if te dreaded "pond difference" is not rearing its ugly head here. Certainly, on reading Sharktacos article linked to on page 1 of this thread, I don't get the impression that he wants to ditch what you or I would understand as SA, though he doesn't, AFAICR, use the phrase. But I do recall having a minor exchange with Tom Clune about this, and his position is that his understanding of what is meant by SA is much more limited in scope than mine. I also remember Mousethief being pretty negative about SA, though I think that, by and large, my view of the Atonement is pretty much that which he himself holds.
ETA this in response to Johnny S post about Sharktacos and SA.
[ 12. July 2007, 11:30: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
CV in contrast says "Had it been a case of a trespass only, and not of a subsequent corruption, repentance would have been well enough" (Athanasius, On the Incarnation, ch 7).
Context is always key. Don't forget that Athanasius was arguing against Arianism. He wanted to stress that Jesus must be God because only God can save and yet Jesus saves. Therefore in the above quote I suspect that Athanasius is stressing that the work of salvation must be something that could not be achieved by a 'mere human'. Whatever his point about what God could do theoretically his main point is that currently human repentance is not enough - God's action in salvation is absolutely necessary.
Below is a quote from exactly the same work by Athanasius (this time from chapter 20)
But since it was necessary also that the debt owing from all should be paid again: for, as I have already said, it was owing that all should die, for which especial cause, indeed, He came among us: to this intent, after the proofs of His Godhead from His works, He next offered up His sacrifice also on behalf of all, yielding His Temple to death in the stead of all, in order firstly to make men quit and free of their old trespass, and further to shew Himself more powerful even than death, displaying His own body incorruptible, as first-fruits of the resurrection of all.
Of course we can debate what 'debt' and 'in the stead of all' means. However, your argument of Athanasius directly contradicting PSA seems to be collapsing a little too easily. It is one thing to argue that Athanasius means slightly different things in those expressions to what PSAers mean, but it is another to demonstrate clearly that he was contradicting PSA.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Actually, John, I do wonder if the dreaded "pond difference" is not rearing its ugly head here.
You could well be right - isn't that a good reason for clarification then?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Actually, John, I do wonder if the dreaded "pond difference" is not rearing its ugly head here.
You could well be right - isn't that a good reason for clarification then?
Absolutely - I'm sure when Sharktacos wakes up we'll get his or her take on it.
(Edited for inclusivity)
[ 12. July 2007, 11:55: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
I agree with pretty much everything Jolly Jape has said including his interpretation of where I am coming from.
In order to move forward I think we will need to have a common understanding of terms here. Let's start with:
what is "penal substitutionary atonement" and how does it differ from "substitutionary atonement".
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
[
quote:
PSA as she is generally understood is the basis of both Catholic and Reformed thinking about Christ.
This is not actually true. PSA is the foundation of Calvinism. It is not the view of Luther, nor was it ever the view of the Catholic Church.
quote:
Show me one tradition that does not assume it as a given?
Christianity for the first 1000 years, the Eastern Orthodox Church, (both CV) and as I said above Lutheranism, Methodism, and Catholicism do not espouse PSA.
So John Wesley preached CV did he? I wonder if the hymns his brother wrote were CV too "'His blood can make the foulest clean..his blood availed for me.."
I was raised Catholic and pretty well knew the mass off by heart. We eat his body and drink his blood. Why I wonder is this necessary? To me it is not that Christ isn't the victor over sin and evil. Of course I believe he is. The issue is the mechanism by which the victory comes and by which we benefit from it. We benefit because He was judged for our sin, it was the sacrifice he made on calvary for us. What was this sacrifice if not a penal substitution? We participate because as we exercise our faith in Christ, God sees our sin was judged when Christ was. Having been forgiven we are also freed from the nature that restricted us so our sin and our sinfulness are both addressed. We are radically recreated or born again and we have the potential to be genuinely holy. Can there be any substitution that is not penal? Can there be holiness without a penalty being paid for sin? Could anyone but the perfect lamb have paid the penalty? In Revelation the only one found worthy to open the was the lamb who presents as having been slain. [/QB]
I think the Wesley's were more into the sacrificial view of atonement plus the exemplary one - 'Love so amazing, so divine demands my soul, my life, my all'.
[ 12. July 2007, 16:48: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
Johnny S,
let's examine this:
But since it was necessary also that the debt owing from all should be paid again: for, as I have already said, it was owing that all should die, for which especial cause, indeed, He came among us:
Here Athanasius is using legal terms (debt leading to death). Before he uses physical terms (corruption leading to death). So why, according to him was it "owing that all should die"? Not because of transgression only, but because of the resulting corruption. Meaning sin is not only an outward act, but effects us inwardly, corrupting our souls and setting us on a course towards death. Not as an externally imposed punishment, but as the inevitable and certain result of our actions. A "moral law" if you will.
to this intent, after the proofs of His Godhead from His works, He next offered up His sacrifice also on behalf of all, yielding His Temple to death in the stead of all,
why does he do this? Athanasius answers:
in order firstly to make men quit and free of their old trespass, and further to shew Himself more powerful even than death, displaying His own body incorruptible, as first-fruits of the resurrection of all.
Not to satisfy the demands of punishment, but to "free" us from our inward soul corruption, to overcome "death" (who here Athanasius personifies and uses as synonymous with the devil). So Christ can rise victorious "resurrecting" as "more powerful than death".
Of all the Fathers, Athanasius' language is the most "legal" but what he is describing is much deeper than the fulfillment of mere legal obligation which in itself cannot reform or renew a heart.
quote:
your argument of Athanasius directly contradicting PSA seems to be collapsing a little too easily.
I disagree. PSA says the central point of Christ's death was to satisfy the demands of legal punishment. Athanasius plainly contradicts this and says that the problem was more profound.
The bottom line is that the Church fathers have a much deeper understanding of the gravity of sin that goes well beyond what a legal theory can comprehend and thus offers a broader understanding of what it means to be set free from sin. It is not mere acquittal (a legal model), it is new life (a physical or medical model).
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
why does he do this? Athanasius answers:
in order firstly to make men quit and free of their old trespass, and further to shew Himself more powerful even than death, displaying His own body incorruptible, as first-fruits of the resurrection of all.
Not to satisfy the demands of punishment, but to "free" us from our inward soul corruption, to overcome "death" (who here Athanasius personifies and uses as synonymous with the devil). So Christ can rise victorious "resurrecting" as "more powerful than death".
The quote above says 'free of their old trespass' (a legal metaphor) - you are the one jumping to 'inward soul corruption'. Maybe if you took those CV glasses off you might stop bumping into things! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
PSA says the central point of Christ's death was to satisfy the demands of legal punishment. Athanasius plainly contradicts this and says that the problem was more profound.
The bottom line is that the Church fathers have a much deeper understanding of the gravity of sin that goes well beyond what a legal theory can comprehend and thus offers a broader understanding of what it means to be set free from sin. It is not mere acquittal (a legal model), it is new life (a physical or medical model).
Athanasius was building up an argument, yes. The idea that his second point is more 'profound' than the first is your assertion - I'm not convinced. Surely he is agruing that Jesus fulfils the legal need as well as the internal work? There is clear evidence of CV here but only that which complements PSA.
As I said before the context of all this is his asertion that Jesus is God - he wants to make it clear that what Jesus achieved was not something mere humans could do.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
what is "penal substitutionary atonement" and how does it differ from "substitutionary atonement".
Okay. Shrewd move - it is far easier to knock down than to build. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
So, here goes ...
I'd start by saying that any explanation of the atonement must the answer to Luther's question... the answer to Exodus 34: 6-7 - how can guilty people draw near to a compassionate and gracious God?
I'll throw out a definition of PSA by John Stott and see how many agree with that to begin with. Do PSAers recognise it? Do SAers baulk at it?
quote:
John Stott:
In and through Christ crucified God substituted himself for us and bore our sins, dying in our place the death we deserved to die, in order that we might be restored to his favour and adopted into his family.
(The Cross of Christ, p 7)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
what is "penal substitutionary atonement" and how does it differ from "substitutionary atonement".
Okay. Shrewd move - it is far easier to knock down than to build.
So, here goes ...
I'd start by saying that any explanation of the atonement must the answer to Luther's question... the answer to Exodus 34: 6-7 - how can guilty people draw near to a compassionate and gracious God?
I'll throw out a definition of PSA by John Stott and see how many agree with that to begin with. Do PSAers recognise it? Do SAers baulk at it?
quote:
John Stott:
In and through Christ crucified God substituted himself for us and bore our sins, dying in our place the death we deserved to die, in order that we might be restored to his favour and adopted into his family.
(The Cross of Christ, p 7)
This could be a good beginning, but it is lacking the two central elements of any atonement theory: the "why" question of the necessity of the cross Why did Christ need to die?), and the "how" question of the efficacy of the cross (how does Christ death save?). So the definition would need to be expanded to address both of these in order to express the "working mechanism" behind the theory.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
This could be a good beginning, but it is lacking the two central elements of any atonement theory: the "why" question of the necessity of the cross Why did Christ need to die?), and the "how" question of the efficacy of the cross (how does Christ death save?). So the definition would need to be expanded to address both of these in order to express the "working mechanism" behind the theory.
Funny that. Previously on the ship I have got quite a few comments along the lines of 'why are PSAers always so obsessed with the mechanism?'
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'll throw out a definition of PSA by John Stott and see how many agree with that to begin with. Do PSAers recognise it? Do SAers baulk at it?
quote:
John Stott:
In and through Christ crucified God substituted himself for us and bore our sins, dying in our place the death we deserved to die, in order that we might be restored to his favour and adopted into his family.
(The Cross of Christ, p 7)
This could be a good beginning, but it is lacking the two central elements of any atonement theory: the "why" question of the necessity of the cross Why did Christ need to die?), and the "how" question of the efficacy of the cross (how does Christ death save?).
But aren't these two implicit in the statement? The implication is that God's need for justice is satisfied by Christ's death.
My question about this is why should God go through a process that essentially changes God (i.e. satifies Him) rather than changing man?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
what is "penal substitutionary atonement" and how does it differ from "substitutionary atonement".
Okay. Shrewd move - it is far easier to knock down than to build.
So, here goes ...
I'd start by saying that any explanation of the atonement must the answer to Luther's question... the answer to Exodus 34: 6-7 - how can guilty people draw near to a compassionate and gracious God?
I'll throw out a definition of PSA by John Stott and see how many agree with that to begin with. Do PSAers recognise it? Do SAers baulk at it?
quote:
John Stott:
In and through Christ crucified God substituted himself for us and bore our sins, dying in our place the death we deserved to die, in order that we might be restored to his favour and adopted into his family.
(The Cross of Christ, p 7)
This could be a good beginning, but it is lacking the two central elements of any atonement theory: the "why" question of the necessity of the cross Why did Christ need to die?), and the "how" question of the efficacy of the cross (how does Christ death save?). So the definition would need to be expanded to address both of these in order to express the "working mechanism" behind the theory.
Christ needed to die because the nature of God demanded an expiation of sin. In The OT, animal sacrifice temporarily plugged a gap here but now a perfect sacrifice has been found. The Passover lamb needed to be perfect and Christ filled the gap being The incarnation of the nature of God, the everlasting word,living a perfect life, sinless, and dying in the midst of the Passover feast. God in his holiness could not accept sin in his presence. We are sinners. Christ's 'God' nature was clothed in humanity yet he maintained his integrity of holiness by not sinning when in the likeness of a man. In his incarnation, he could dwell with sinners because his true nature was concealed, being seen momentarily at the transfiguration. Yet he maintained holiness and his association with sinners was enabled possibly because the cross event was imminent and had a retrospective effect.
The death of Christ saves, as Numpty has explained, by the inclusion of us into the cross event. When Christ was judged so was our sin. God can now see us as righteous, Christ having been judged in our place and we having been seen by God as having been simultaneously judged with him on the cross. Romans 6 explains the process. The actualisation of such salvation demands that God reveals this opportunity for grace to us and that we decide to accept it. Such is my understanding of the conversion process.
[ 13. July 2007, 01:01: Message edited by: Jamat ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
So we need to examine the internal assumptions of how things work that lie behind PSA.
Freddy suggests that God needed "for justice is satisfied by Christ's death". Here we need to ask how justice is satisfied through punishment/death? Perhaps we need to define the term "satisfaction".
Jamat says that God's "demanded an expiation of sin". Again, why does it demand one, and what is meant by expiation? Further, Jamat says "When Christ was judged so was our sin". But why would that make things right? The implication is that once our sin was punished, God was no longer mad. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth however, so I'm asking: is that the intent? Is this the internal logic behind the theory of how justice works?
[ 13. July 2007, 02:28: Message edited by: sharktacos ]
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
So we need to examine the internal assumptions of how things work that lie behind PSA.
Freddy suggests that God needed "for justice is satisfied by Christ's death". Here we need to ask how justice is satisfied through punishment/death? Perhaps we need to define the term "satisfaction".
Jamat says that God's "demanded an expiation of sin". Again, why does it demand one, and what is meant by expiation? Further, Jamat says "When Christ was judged so was our sin". But why would that make things right? The implication is that once our sin was punished, God was no longer mad. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth however, so I'm asking: is that the intent? Is this the internal logic behind the theory of how justice works?
The problem since the fall has always been that God's holiness separated him from his fallen creation. Holiness and sin are mutually exclusive. But God in his love bridged the gap in Christ and the means was to judge Christ who was sinless by placing our sin upon him. God was never angry in a human sense just separated from us and incompatible with us hence the complexity of Mosaic law which Christ brought to an end and which, consequently, we no longer have to keep thank God.
This is evangelical faith 101 isn't it?
Justice is a moral law that demands redress of wrong, deny it at your peril. The argument on this thread is whether it has to be retributive or can be dealt with by a 'forgiveness'model.
My view as often stated is that retribution is a penalty exacted for redressing a wrong what ever the form it may take. To me retributive may also be restorative but not necessarily. I contend God needed to satisfy justice before forgiveness can be offered. The logic is that:
He judged Christ for my sin.
I am in Christ so I can be forgiven.
I must extend forgiveness to others now since this is Christ's obligation on me.
Whatever the form it takes, satisfaction is demanded by the definition of justice. An eternal law demands that our sin be judged, the problem for God is how to judge our sin yet save us intact.
My problem with CV is and remains that it seems to, when taken to a logical conclusion, minimise the problem of sin. JJ has waxed eloquent as to why this is not the case but I can't agree with him.
And it is actually Paul who said that when Christ was judged so was our sin. Ro 6:6,7,8 "Our old self was crucified with him....Now if we have died with Christ, we believe we shall also live with him."
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
CV ..... is about God overcoming evil and liberating us out of its bondage.
And precisely how this occurs is the problem bit if you take away the idea that Christ was judged in our place
Isn't this the key to the whole issue?
It seems to me that the example of Christ's temptations in the wilderness answers that question.
Christ subdued the devil by refuting his suggestions and remaining in perfect obedience to the Father. Multiply those victories by thousands and you have Christ overcoming the power of darkness.
The idea is that Christ's encounters with evil, in the form of "the devil", the "power of darkness", the "prince of this world", and even those in this world who challenged and opposed Him, actually had a permanent effect.
When Christ's combats were over those powers were effectively subdued - meaning that people were no longer spiritually under their dominion but were free to choose good or evil.
The implication of this is not universalism, but the freedom to choose.
Furthermore, the means that Christ used were the teachings that He spoke. This is how He refuted the devil, how He opposed the Jewish leaders, and how He led, and fed, the multitudes. As these words remain with us, His power to fight for us also remains. The implication is that we use these truths in the same way, and overcome evil in our own lives by His power by living by these truths. This is how God's power works in us - not by our own strength but by His.
This is how we were, and are, liberated from bondage.
By contrast, how does Christ being judged in our place really help?
Thought you had an issue with the devil idea Freddy.
The temptations in the wilderness were an example of a spirit-led man finding a 'God' power within to defeat evil. Christ, though, had no nature of sin as we do. The temptations for him were to short cut the cross and take the kingdom through a non-cross alternative but to him this would be to sidestep God's plan and let Satan win through the back door. You seem to be suggesting that we could emulate what Jesus did without going through calvary Freddy, though I'm sure you are not. However, this has a whiff of 'salvation by my own strength' doesn't it?
Incidentally has anyone been tempted to tun stones into bread lately?
Christ judged in my place solves my problem. I was dragged back by my sin from a holiness imperative, now I can pursue it. Read Rmans 6.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
Jamat,
"satisfaction is demanded by the definition of justice"
Please define "satisfaction" and "justice". Do you mean that pain/destruction is demanded by the definition retribution? Or do you mean that restitution is demanded by the definition of restoration?
Is justice about "getting what we have coming to us"? Or is it about "making things right"?
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
Jamat,
"My problem with CV is and remains that it seems to, when taken to a logical conclusion, minimise the problem of sin."
What logical conclusion is that?
I would say on the contrary that it gives a much deeper and broader perspective on sin than a legal view can. So I again have to wonder what you think CV says? Have you read Aulen's book? Are you confusing Christus Victor with the "just forgive" view?
Again we need to define our terms.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I may have forgotten but I don't think we've looked at the Catholic doctrine of the Mass in this context: I've always understood the Mass to be a 'propitiatory sacrifice' (albeit unbloody), which to me sounds a lot like a form of PSA.
What say ye?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What say ye?
Propitiatory sacrifice is unjust according to the legal model. It's like bribing the judge.
The implication is that SA is really about restoring the relationship between humans and God, not satisfying cosmic law. My opinion is that the distinction gets a bit fuzzy as you get into more nuanced versions of PSA.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Thanks Matt. Like it wasn't complicated enough already!
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
John Stott:
In and through Christ crucified God substituted himself for us and bore our sins, dying in our place the death we deserved to die, in order that we might be restored to his favour and adopted into his family.
(The Cross of Christ, p 7)
quote:
This could be a good beginning, but it is lacking the two central elements of any atonement theory: the "why" question of the necessity of the cross Why did Christ need to die?), and the "how" question of the efficacy of the cross (how does Christ death save?).
But aren't these two implicit in the statement? The implication is that God's need for justice is satisfied by Christ's death.
My question about this is why should God go through a process that essentially changes God (i.e. satifies Him) rather than changing man?
I'm not sure that is implicit in John Stott's quote.
Also, since the above quote was in answer to the question - "How can guilty people draw near to a gracious and compassionate (and holy... see Exodus 34) God?" - I don't see how you can say it is all about changing God. The change occurs in us. Our nature is punished for sin, forgiven, reconciled, redeemed and restored. I know JJ doesn't like concrete metaphors but I still can't see how a wall can be knocked down in such a way that it only effects the people on one side of it.
I re-read last night a book which was fascinating in the light of our discussion. 'Essentials', written by David Edwards with a response from John Stott. It is titled 'a liberal-evangelical debate'.
Two things struck me as I looked again at these two great thinkers arguing over the cross. (Remember it was published in 1988 well before SA was 'revisited'.)
1. There was much less of a middle ground (obviously since it was a liberal-evangelical debate!). John Stott could refer to NT expressions like 'Christ died for us' safe in the knowledge that most people would read that in an objective and (to some degree) penal sense. How things have changed! Lots of terms are being reviewed now. If the discussion happened today they would spend all their time defining terms!
2. All of Edwards problems with Stott's view are exactly the same ones we have been discussing on this thread. Now I'm not trying some crass 'guilty by association' argument here. In and of itself this proves nothing. I simply find it interesting that the middle ground is becoming blurred these days with evangelicals and others using the liberal arguments of yesteryear.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Thought you had an issue with the devil idea Freddy.
In my view hell is populated by devils and satans, and heaven is populated by angels. Collectively, hell is called "the devil" or "satan". The biblical use of the term simply personifies evil in a symbolic way, or it describes an encounter with either an individual devil or a group of them.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You seem to be suggesting that we could emulate what Jesus did without going through calvary Freddy, though I'm sure you are not.
Yes, we cannot emulate what Jesus did without going through Calvary. By this I take it that you mean that we each need to go through Calvary?
Jesus emphasized the need to lose one's life:
quote:
Matthew 10:39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.
Matthew 16:25 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.
Mark 8:35 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it.
Luke 9:24 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it.
Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.
John 12:25 He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.
Luke 17:33 Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.
Revelation 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.
Is this what you mean by going through Calvary? Or do you mean PSA?
As I understand it, we are able to give up our own lives because Jesus gave up His. That is, we are able to give spiritual life priority over physical life because Jesus made that possible, and we can do it through His power.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
However, this has a whiff of 'salvation by my own strength' doesn't it?
This is my point with Johnny, and the reason behind my saying that PSA does not take sin seriously or promote repentance. If our "own strength" is irrelevant to our salvation, then why struggle against sin in ourselves? This is where I think that PSA is so seriously mistaken and unbiblical.
I believe that we struggle "as if of ourselves" but that the actual power is from Christ. So we do not save ourselves, Christ does. Still, the subjective appearance is that we make efforts to improve ourselves, calling on God's help, and that we make progress in this over the course of our lifetime. This makes sense of Jesus' frequent statements that we cannot be saved unless we do as He teaches us, and that without Him "we can do nothing." With Him and from Him we can overcome evil in our lives.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Incidentally has anyone been tempted to tun stones into bread lately?
Don't you think that this could be metaphoric? Christ's temptations in the wilderness summarize all the temptations of His lifetime.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Read Romans 6.
I think that we all know Romans 6 quite well. Is there anything in particular there that would be helpful?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Jamat,
"My problem with CV is and remains that it seems to, when taken to a logical conclusion, minimise the problem of sin."
What logical conclusion is that?
I would say on the contrary that it gives a much deeper and broader perspective on sin than a legal view can. So I again have to wonder what you think CV says? Have you read Aulen's book? Are you confusing Christus Victor with the "just forgive" view?
Again we need to define our terms.
I agree that we don't seem to have a common understanding of CV. I think I'm describing CV when I said above:
quote:
Christ subdued the devil by refuting his suggestions and remaining in perfect obedience to the Father. Multiply those victories by thousands and you have Christ overcoming the power of darkness.
The idea is that Christ's encounters with evil, in the form of "the devil", the "power of darkness", the "prince of this world", and even those in this world who challenged and opposed Him, actually had a permanent effect.
When Christ's combats were finished, those powers were effectively subdued - meaning that people were no longer spiritually under their dominion but were free to choose good or evil.
The implication of this is not universalism, but the freedom to choose.
Furthermore, the means that Christ used were the teachings that He spoke. This is how He refuted the devil, how He opposed the Jewish leaders, and how He led, and fed, the multitudes. As these words remain with us, His power to fight for us also remains. The implication is that we use these truths in the same way, and overcome evil in our own lives by His power by living by these truths. This is how God's power works in us - not by our own strength but by His.
This is how we were, and are, liberated from bondage.
Is this different than what others understand by CV?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I may have forgotten but I don't think we've looked at the Catholic doctrine of the Mass in this context: I've always understood the Mass to be a 'propitiatory sacrifice' (albeit unbloody), which to me sounds a lot like a form of PSA.
What say ye?
I'd say that the Catholic Mass is more lke science fiction: it is based on the idea of folding the space-time continuum so that the sacrifice of the altar is directly and mystically connected to the one crucifixion event. It's not that the Mass is 'another' sacrifice, but rather that it is a mystical reconnection with the one sacrifice. It's as if the event of the mass is a dot on a piece of paper (i.e. a fixed point in time) and the crucifixion is another dot (fixed point in time) but that these events connect through the folding of space-time.
In short, I can see no penal element in the mass other than one that rests of mystical union with a the one penal sacrifice of teh cross.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I was more focussing on the 'propitiatory' bit.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I may have forgotten but I don't think we've looked at the Catholic doctrine of the Mass in this context: I've always understood the Mass to be a 'propitiatory sacrifice' (albeit unbloody), which to me sounds a lot like a form of PSA.
What say ye?
I would say that PSA is something the Catholic Church would reject. Case in point:
"This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, "Doctrine of the Atonement")
Catholics believe in "satisfaction doctrine" which if you are used to thinking in PSA terms can sound a lot like PSA. But the Catholic Church would reject PSA. Hence the need to define terms.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
Johnny S,
If you disagree with what Freddy said, could you then state the necessity and efficacy of the cross in your understanding of PSA?
No need to be "mechanical" I am merely looking for the operative internal logic behind the idea.
p.s. I like your idea about the falling wall effecting those on both sides.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Freddy, I am not recognizing CV in your description.
Just as I feared.
So how else can we think of Christ being victorious over evil?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I may have forgotten but I don't think we've looked at the Catholic doctrine of the Mass in this context: I've always understood the Mass to be a 'propitiatory sacrifice' (albeit unbloody), which to me sounds a lot like a form of PSA.
What say ye?
I would say that PSA is something the Catholic Church would reject. Case in point:
"This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, "Doctrine of the Atonement")
Catholics believe in "satisfaction doctrine" which if you are used to thinking in PSA terms can sound a lot like PSA. But the Catholic Church would reject PSA. Hence the need to define terms.
Define 'propitiatory sacrifice', then, and explain how it differs from PSA.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
Matt Black:
[/QUOTE]Define 'propitiatory sacrifice', then, and explain how it differs from PSA. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Catholic Atonement doctrine is rooted in the idea of penance. Penance is more about effecting an inner change in sinners then it is about appeasement of God.
Propitiation means "to make favorable". It is not a main focus of the Catholic view.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
Freddy, I agree with what you say about us being set free to follow in Christ's teaching and way. What I find missing is any mention of how the incarnation, crucifixion, or resurrection fits into this.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Some have said that CV doesn't take sin seriously but I'm not sure that's the right word. I think CV does not take sin personally enough. Even NT Wright can't escape the fact that the scriptures speak of God treating some people as his enemies (and not just 'sin' as his enemy). The framework of the NT assumes the future action of God against evil doers (and not just their evil deeds).
Therefore PSA supplies a metaphor for how God treats our sin personally (NB not individually) and yet still can forgive and restore us.
So on to a fuller explanation of PSA. How about this one from Howard Marshall?
quote:
Howard Marshall:
Salvation is available to sinful human beings through the death of Christ that involves him in bearing the consequences of sin. These consequences constitute the penalty due to sin, rightly called a penalty because it is painful and deprives the sinner of life with God and all its blessings. In this way the holy and loving God upholds righteousness through judging sinners and saving those who accept what he has done in his Son on their behalf and instead of them.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Matt Black:
quote:
Define 'propitiatory sacrifice', then, and explain how it differs from PSA.
Catholic Atonement doctrine is rooted in the idea of penance. Penance is more about effecting an inner change in sinners then it is about appeasement of God.
Propitiation means "to make favorable". It is not a main focus of the Catholic view.
Just to clarify, from Wikipedia:
quote:
The Greek word hilasterion is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew kapporeth which refers to the Mercy Seat of the Arc. Hilasterion can be translated as either "propitiation" or "expiation" which then imply different functions of the Mercy Seat. Propitiation literally means to make favorable and specifically includes the idea of dealing with God’s wrath against sinners. Expiation literally means to make pious and implies either the removal or cleansing of sin.
The idea of propitiation includes that of expiation as its means, but the word "expiation" has no reference to quenching God’s righteous anger. The difference is that linguistically the object of expiation is sin, not God (i.e. sin is removed, not God). Linguistically, one propitiates a person (makes them favorable), and one expiates a problem (removes it). Christ's death was therefore both an expiation and a propitiation. By expiating (removing the problem of) sin God was made propitious (favorable) to us.
So a 'propitiatory sacrifice' would seem to be about pleasing God. The meaning depends on what kind of things you view as pleasing to God, or that would make Him favorable.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
You know a reoccurring theme that I am hearing here from a number of posters in the PSA camp is the inability to imagine any other model besides PSA, and the inability to comprehend CV.
That should tell us something.
Hello! PSA adherent here!
I value all the theories of atonement - they all speak to me, they all have value.
One on its own is never enough.
Sometimes PSA, sometimes ransom, sometimes example, etc, etc...
Why can't we have them all - all I would say is they should all be compulsory because they all have Scriptural backing - even it has to be said, PSA!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Matt Black:
quote:
Define 'propitiatory sacrifice', then, and explain how it differs from PSA.
Catholic Atonement doctrine is rooted in the idea of penance. Penance is more about effecting an inner change in sinners then it is about appeasement of God.
Propitiation means "to make favorable". It is not a main focus of the Catholic view.
Just to clarify, from Wikipedia:
quote:
The Greek word hilasterion is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew kapporeth which refers to the Mercy Seat of the Arc. Hilasterion can be translated as either "propitiation" or "expiation" which then imply different functions of the Mercy Seat. Propitiation literally means to make favorable and specifically includes the idea of dealing with God’s wrath against sinners. Expiation literally means to make pious and implies either the removal or cleansing of sin.
The idea of propitiation includes that of expiation as its means, but the word "expiation" has no reference to quenching God’s righteous anger. The difference is that linguistically the object of expiation is sin, not God (i.e. sin is removed, not God). Linguistically, one propitiates a person (makes them favorable), and one expiates a problem (removes it). Christ's death was therefore both an expiation and a propitiation. By expiating (removing the problem of) sin God was made propitious (favorable) to us.
So a 'propitiatory sacrifice' would seem to be about pleasing God. The meaning depends on what kind of things you view as pleasing to God, or that would make Him favorable.
No - ilasterion was a Septuagint word for ‘mercy seat’. In Leviticus 16:16, blood was sprinkled over it. Hebrews 9:5 has the definite article THE hilasterion so it must refer to Christ removing what defiles the worshipper, rendering him unfit to approach God. The blood, in the Hebrew sacrificial system, is seen as ‘the life’ – so atonement is not about Christ’s death placating an angry God but about the living of his whole incarnate life as an offering to God and a showing to us of the way to live. Christ did not die INSTEAD (Greek anti) of us but FOR (Gk hyper) us – for us to follow in his self-giving steps.
This is the sacrificial theory and is, thus, different from PSA.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Freddy, I agree with what you say about us being set free to follow in Christ's teaching and way. What I find missing is any mention of how the incarnation, crucifixion, or resurrection fits into this.
I see. You're right.
As I see it, the way that the crucifixion fits into this is that it was the final conflict, involving the greatest agony and effort, and the final victory.
So when it was over:
quote:
John 19:28 Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I thirst!”...He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.
What was finished? The conflict. What was accomplished? The victory, or the task He came to perform. As He said:
quote:
John 17.1 “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You... I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. 5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
I'm not sure what "the work" would be if not the subjugation of hell, completed at His death, since He also said:
quote:
John 12:27 “Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save Me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour....Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out."
John 16:33 "These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”
According to the prophets, the Lord would cast out those who oppress His people:
quote:
Zephaniah 3:15 The LORD has taken away your judgments, He has cast out your enemy. The King of Israel, the LORD, is in your midst; You shall see disaster no more.
It seems to me that this is what He did, and it was the work that was finished in the crucifixion.
So the Incarnation was God's coming into the world to save it from destruction, His duration on earth was the time during which that salvation was accomplished, and the crucifixion was the final part of the process.
He explained the need for His death in numerous passages, which I quoted above, which point out that the things of this world need to die so that those of the spirit may live.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Why can't we have them all - all I would say is they should all be compulsory because they all have Scriptural backing - even it has to be said, PSA!
If you read back over recent posts you will see that PSAers do want them all. Some are advocating CV only - i.e. specifically wanting to remove PSA as a possible model.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
so atonement is not about Christ’s death placating an angry God but about the living of his whole incarnate life as an offering to God and a showing to us of the way to live. Christ did not die INSTEAD (Greek anti) of us but FOR (Gk hyper) us – for us to follow in his self-giving steps.
This is the sacrificial theory and is, thus, different from PSA.
Thanks, Leo. That makes it clearer and is better than what I said.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
