|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Christus Victor
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
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.
Woah there Leo. You are putting a whole lot of weight on one breathing in Hebrews 9: 5!
If you are argument is correct then it is rather odd (to put it mildly!) that the writer spends the rest of the chapter talking about what Christ's blood and his death achieved instead of his life. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
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.
Yes. I think the point is that some of us think that PSA is not a good model because of the way that it portrays God and salvation.
--------------------
"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
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
Leo writes,
quote:
No - ilasterion was a Septuagint word for ‘mercy seat’.
Thanks for adding that Leo, let me put it all together. Hilasterion is a Greek word that means either propitiate or expiate. In the Septuagint, which is the Old Testament in Greek that the authors of the New Testament used, the word that is used to to refer to the mercy seat in the Temple is "hilasterion". So from that we can conclude that when Paul calls Christ a "hilasterion" he is saying that Christ's sacrifice on the cross is the focal point of God's mercy.
I agree with what you say about the sacrifices. What is commonly misunderstood about them by PSAers is that the purpose of the blood was not to appease, but to cleanse, as the book of Hebrews clearly says.
[ 13. July 2007, 19:59: Message edited by: sharktacos ]
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
Johnny S:
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.
So then, let me compact that a bit:
Christ bears the penalty of our sin, so that God can uphold the demands of righteousness to punish sin. That demand being fulfilled for us in Christ, we are “off the hook”, so to speak.
Does that work for you as a rough definition?
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Afghan
Shipmate
# 10478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Hilasterion is a Greek word that means either propitiate or expiate.
Not quite... The '-ion' ending (often rendered '-ium' in Latin) usually has a locational sense. So really it is 'a place where propitiation occurs'.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
What is commonly misunderstood about them by PSAers is that the purpose of the blood was not to appease, but to cleanse, as the book of Hebrews clearly says.
The word in Hebrew is kippur literally means 'to cover' - or perhaps more idiomatically 'to smooth over'. It is used to describe what Noah does with his pitch to the ark. As I said earlier, it is used to describe Jacob's gifts to Esau to obtain his forgiveness. 'Appeasement' seems a lot closer to the original sense than 'cleansing'.
--------------------
Credibile quia ineptum
Posts: 438 | From: Essex | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I agree with what you say about the sacrifices. What is commonly misunderstood about them by PSAers is that the purpose of the blood was not to appease, but to cleanse, as the book of Hebrews clearly says.
Which is also consistent with the way it is spoken of elsewhere:
quote:
Genesis 49:11 He washed his garments in wine, And his clothes in the blood of grapes.
Revelation 1:5 To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood,
Revelation 7:14 “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
So the point of the blood is to cleanse, not to appease. Which makes sense of the often used quotes in Hebrews:
quote:
Hebrews 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Hebrews 9:22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
According to this, Christ's sacrifice does not appease God, it cleanses us.
How does it do that?
As I understand it, it does it because in conquering sin He removed its power over us, or by His words He gave us the power to resist sin in ourselves - so that we can be cleansed, not by our own power but by His as we obey His Word.
--------------------
"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
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
Thanks for the clarification Freddy, that sounds more recognizable.
I think what it would need then is to work out how the imagery of demons and devil has a real connection with evil in our own lives and world, so people can connect to the meaning behind this ancient world view.
I also think it needs to be explained how CV is not simply a victory motif to tack onto a legal paradigm of punitive justice, but provides its own paradigm through which we can understand justice, sin, and salvation.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
'Appeasement' seems a lot closer to the original sense than 'cleansing'.
Not in the context. Appeasing or placating is a pagan concept of sacrifice. John Stott, and even Calvin stress God does not need to be made loving or reconciled, but is the one who provides the sacrifice. So saying God provides a way for us to appease him is like if I gave you a wad of cash so you could bribe me. It so radically changes the meaning simply that it makes no sense.
Our sin is expiated (removed) and thus we are set right and wrath is removed as a consequence (propitiation).
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Afghan
Shipmate
# 10478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Not in the context. Appeasing or placating is a pagan concept of sacrifice.
I'm not sure what context you are talking about. We can only look at how the word is used in the Tanakh. To say that the context is different because of prior theological commitments feels closer to eisegesis than I'm comfortable with. But perhaps I've misconstrued what you're saying here. Could you clarify?
--------------------
Credibile quia ineptum
Posts: 438 | From: Essex | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
According to this, Christ's sacrifice does not appease God, it cleanses us.
How does it do that?
As I understand it, it does it because in conquering sin He removed its power over us, or by His words He gave us the power to resist sin in ourselves - so that we can be cleansed, not by our own power but by His as we obey His Word.
Thanks Freddy for making a stab at explaining how CV works but I have to say that is precisely where CV falls down ISTM.
Christ's blood clearly does none of the things you say objectively or none of us living after him would sin. These things can only be true via the means of faith. Now I can just about understand how PSA works here - there is the famous case in America of a court ruling where a man refused to accept his own pardon and so was executed. As it were the legal metaphor 'works'. I can't see how Christ's blood can cleanse me (in a CV way) by faith though. It is just hand waving stuff. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
John Stott, and even Calvin stress God does not need to be made loving or reconciled, but is the one who provides the sacrifice.
It is true that the wrath of God is operative against sinners who have not accepted the gospel, but it is not true that God’s wrath has to be appeased before he will be merciful. The mercy lies behind the death of Jesus in which God provides the way for sinners to return to him.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Our sin is expiated (removed) and thus we are set right and wrath is removed as a consequence (propitiation).
So does that mean that you agree that God's wrath is operating against sinners who have not yet repented?
Personally I think that is what this is all about - does God show wrath to unrepentant sinners / is God the enemy of those who reject him? Yes = PSA. No = CV.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
So then, let me compact that a bit:
Christ bears the penalty of our sin, so that God can uphold the demands of righteousness to punish sin. That demand being fulfilled for us in Christ, we are “off the hook”, so to speak.
Does that work for you as a rough definition?
Why do we need to compact it? Was the definition I offered so very long? Either you like it or not.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
Johnny says to Freddy,
"Christ's blood clearly does none of the things you say objectively or none of us living after him would sin."
You'll need to demonstrate that, not simply assert it. What Freddy said biblically speaking was quite accurate. It is your conclusion that is mistaken.
"Now I can just about understand how PSA works here - there is the famous case in America of a court ruling where a man refused to accept his own pardon and so was executed. As it were the legal metaphor 'works'. I can't see how Christ's blood can cleanse me (in a CV way) by faith though. It is just hand waving stuff."
Here you seem to be implying that PSA is appropriated by faith, where as CV is automatic. Nothing could be further from the truth. As far as how salvation works (by grace through faith) there is zero difference between CV and PSA.
Johnny says to shark
"does God show wrath to unrepentant sinners / is God the enemy of those who reject him? Yes = PSA. No = CV.
If you think this is the difference, then you have not understood CV. Bible=we are God's enemies because of our sin. God loves his enemies.
From what you are saying here, I don't know what in the world you are describing, but it is most certainly not CV, it more resembles a collection of pop-heresies that you are randomly applying.
"So does that mean that you agree that God's wrath is operating against sinners who have not yet repented?"
Yes.
The difference is that CV offers a more nuanced understanding of the problem and the solution. It on the one had says that God's wrath stands against us because of our sin, so we are God's enemies, but at the same time that God loves his enmeies and desires mercy. Wrath and law are not simply iron clad rules to be obeyed by God, but have themselves become fallen and have now "what was holy through sin has become death to us" as Paul says. So God not only needs to overcome our personal fallenness, but also the falleness of the law, wrath, condemnation, religion, and authority that have equally become fallen and are in need of redemption.
Because PSA works in a legal framework it can only be individual and external, There is no concept in the definition that speaks of sin on an institutional or structural level (so it is ignored) and there is no concept of how an inner change is effected in us (so the doctrine of sanctification is tacked on artificially). Because of this it only offers a superficial understanding of sin and salvation that amounts to acquittal. As if the only problem was God being mad rather than sin being like a cancer in us. So PSA gets so stuck on one line of thought in the Bible (the idea of wrath) than it ignores all the others. For this reason PSA has yet to fully grasp the gravity of sin and is sub-biblical, a half-truth.
"Why do we need to compact it? Was the definition I offered so very long?"
Now you are just being difficult. Unless you have a substantive problem with the definition we will stick with this:
Christ bears the penalty of our sin, so that God can uphold the demands of righteousness to punish sin. That demand being fulfilled for us in Christ, we are “off the hook”, so to speak.
As I said it only deals with sin on an artificial external level and ignores the bondage and inner rot of sin that we need to be cleansed from. Jesus said that "the sick need a doctor" but PSA simply gives them a clean bill of health without curing the disease. If thus offers a superficial understandings of what Christ really did on the cross and the grace available through faith in his blood.
CV in contrast takes into account the full biblical picture (including wrath and substitution) understood in a relational rather than legal paradigm which is the central leitmotif of Scripture.
--------------------
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 Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
According to this, Christ's sacrifice does not appease God, it cleanses us.
How does it do that?
As I understand it, it does it because in conquering sin He removed its power over us, or by His words He gave us the power to resist sin in ourselves - so that we can be cleansed, not by our own power but by His as we obey His Word.
Thanks Freddy for making a stab at explaining how CV works but I have to say that is precisely where CV falls down ISTM.
Christ's blood clearly does none of the things you say objectively or none of us living after him would sin.
Christ's blood does do these things.
According to Jesus, the blood gives us the power - which we are free to use or not. So we can certainly sin. We only use the power when we obey His Word, which we may or may not do.
But the blood is not just blood. It is a clear symbol for the truth of the covenant or testimony that Christ taught. The blood is associated with the covenant or testimony because it stands for what is testified, and our acceptance of it:
quote:
Hebrews 9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.”
Zechariah 9:11 “ As for you also, because of the blood of your covenant, I will set your prisoners free from the waterless pit.”
Matthew 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins.
The blood of the new testament is the new things that Jesus taught us. His blood is poured out, or shed, so that we can receive it, accept it, and be forgiven.
This is the reason for the imagery relating to the drinking of His blood:
quote:
John 6:53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.
Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.
He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
If we drink His blood it means that we take His truth into ourselves.
You can tell that drinking His blood means accepting and living by His words because He says this elsewhere:
quote:
John 15:10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.
1 John 3:24 Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.
How do we drink His blood and abide in Him? We hear His Word and obey it.
Other passages associate Christ's blood with the truth that He speaks:
quote:
1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.
1 John 5:6 This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth….And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.
Revelation 19:13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
The light, the truth, the Word - these are all associated with Christ's teachings and our acceptance of those teachings.
This is how evil is overcome. The blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony both stand for the truth that guides and fights for us:
quote:
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.
Hebrews 2:14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
We partake of Christ's flesh and blood to gain the love and the knowledge we need to be freed of evil in our life.
So I don't think that CV is weak here. I think this is consistent with all of Christ's teachings.
--------------------
"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 sharktacos:
Johnny S:
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.
So then, let me compact that a bit:
Christ bears the penalty of our sin, so that God can uphold the demands of righteousness to punish sin. That demand being fulfilled for us in Christ, we are “off the hook”, so to speak.
Does that work for you as a rough definition?
Not according to the writer of the following statement: quote:
God put [Christ] forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed. (Romans 3:25)
Boil that down to the most basic problem the death of Christ is meant to solve. God put Christ forward (he sent him to die) in order to demonstrate his righteousness (or justice). The problem that needed solving was that God, for some reason, seemed to be unrighteous, and wanted to vindicate himself and clear his name. That is the basic issue. God's righteousness is at stake. His name or reputation or honor must be vindicated. Before the cross can be for our sake, it must be for God's sake.
But what created that problem? Why did God face the problem of needing to give a public vindication of his righteousness? The answer is in the last phrase of verse 25: "because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed."
Now what does that mean? It means that for centuries God had been doing what Psalm 103:10 says, "He does not deal with us according to our sins or repay us according to our iniquities." He has been passing over thousands of sins. He has been forgiving them and letting them go and not punishing them.
The writer's main point is that contemporary articulations of the atonement have become radically anthropocentric. Human beings, and the needs of humanity, become the primary lens through which the crucifixion is viewed. The writer I quoted, who happens to be John Piper, takes a more theocentric view of the passage that is currently being discussed in this thread. For the whole article, which I think, makes interesting reading click here.
[ 14. July 2007, 05:22: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Posted by sharktacos: quote:
Because PSA works in a legal framework it can only be individual and external.
I think my explanation of PSA, which does rest on a 'legal' framework, explains quite adequately how the cross is effectual at a corporate level: the body (or corpus if you wish) in whom and through whom justified sinners are united is Christ. As for the external, I would have to say that the cross has not atoned for any sin that exists outside of Christ crucified. The locus of atonement for sin is Christ in a very real sense. Sin must be understood to have been destroyed in and through Christ alone. No sin that is external to Christ, in other words any sin that has not been borne by him, is not atoned for.
quote:
There is no concept in the definition that speaks of sin on an institutional or structural level (so it is ignored)
This is not true. The NT quite clearly portrays justified people using corporate (the body of Christ) and structiral (the Temple) language. The NT portrays cross as the means by which true union at an institutional and structural level is acheived.
quote:
...and there is no concept of how an inner change is effected in us (so the doctrine of sanctification is tacked on artificially).
Again, this is not true. In the Reformed tradition sanctification is by faith alone, just as is justfication. The two are inseparable inasmuch as as justified sinner will bear the fruit of repentance which is a holy life. The categorical distinction, however, is this: sanctification is not what roots the believer in God. In other words the root is justfication by faith, the fruit is sanctification by faith.
quote:
Because of this it only offers a superficial understanding of sin and salvation that amounts to acquittal. As if the only problem was God being mad rather than sin being like a cancer in us.
PSA does not suggest that 'God being angry' is the only problem. Piper quite clearly asserts that the main problem is that God desires mercy not sacrifice and insodoing lays himself open to the charge of indulgence and injustice.
quote:
So PSA gets so stuck on one line of thought in the Bible (the idea of wrath) than it ignores all the others. For this reason PSA has yet to fully grasp the gravity of sin and is sub-biblical, a half-truth.
No, what I think has happened is this: you seem to have dismissed PSA as an intellectually inferior model of the atonement and you allowing that assumption (and it is an assumption) to justify a superficial reading of PSA. It is much deeper and theologicall subtle than you are currently allowing for, and this is causing you to engage superficially with the argument and with its proponents.
[ 14. July 2007, 06:03: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
craigb
Shipmate
# 11318
|
Posted
In all this talk about Gods Wrath, could someone please explain what Gods wrath is?
Thanks craig b
--------------------
Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!I once was lost, but now am found; Was blind, but now I see... The Lord has promised good to me,His word my hope secures;He will my shield and portion be,As long as life endures.
Posts: 993 | From: Tahmoor | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Not according to the writer of the following statement: quote:
God put [Christ] forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed. (Romans 3:25)
Boil that down to the most basic problem the death of Christ is meant to solve. God put Christ forward (he sent him to die) in order to demonstrate his righteousness (or justice). The problem that needed solving was that God, for some reason, seemed to be unrighteous, and wanted to vindicate himself and clear his name. That is the basic issue. God's righteousness is at stake. His name or reputation or honor must be vindicated. Before the cross can be for our sake, it must be for God's sake.
But what created that problem? Why did God face the problem of needing to give a public vindication of his righteousness? The answer is in the last phrase of verse 25: "because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed."
Now what does that mean? It means that for centuries God had been doing what Psalm 103:10 says, "He does not deal with us according to our sins or repay us according to our iniquities." He has been passing over thousands of sins. He has been forgiving them and letting them go and not punishing them.
The writer's main point is that contemporary articulations of the atonement have become radically anthropocentric.
I think that Piper radically misses the point of Romans 3:25.
The sins that He has passed over, but which He will now rectify, are the ones referred to in passages like these:
quote:
Psalm 13:1 How long, O LORD? Will You forget me forever?How long will You hide Your face from me?
How long shall I take counsel in my soul,Having sorrow in my heart daily? How long will my enemy be exalted over me?
Psalm 35:17 Lord, how long will You look on?Rescue me from their destructions, My precious life from the lions.
Psalm 74:10 O God, how long will the adversary reproach? Will the enemy blaspheme Your name forever?
Psalm 82:2 How long will you judge unjustly, and show partiality to the wicked?
Psalm 94:3 LORD, how long will the wicked, how long will the wicked triumph?
Isaiah 6:11 Then I said, “Lord, how long?” And He answered:“ Until the cities are laid waste and without inhabitant, The houses are without a man, The land is utterly desolate,
Habakkuk 1:2 O LORD, how long shall I cry, And You will not hear? Even cry out to You, “Violence!” And You will not save.
Zechariah 1:12 Then the Angel of the LORD answered and said, “O LORD of hosts, how long will You not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which You were angry these seventy years?”
Luke 18:7 And shall God not avenge His own elect who cry out day and night to Him, though He bears long with them?
Revelation 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”
In these passages, as in many others, God's righteousness is at stake because He has so far failed to bring justice to the world, He has failed to free us from our oppressors, He has failed to bring peace and end war.
This is a very major biblical theme. God has allowed the good to suffer, but He will make it right sooner or later.
Isn't this one of the most common charges against God that we talk about here on the Ship? How can there be a God if He allows evil to exist and prosper the way it does? Paul is simply articulating the problem of evil, and Piper is missing the point.
--------------------
"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 craigb:
In all this talk about Gods Wrath, could someone please explain what Gods wrath is?
God's wrath is very much like the wrath of a loving parent. There isn't really any wrath at all, but the child thinks that there is because he or she hears the parent speaking sternly and sees the parent's serious face.
The biblical wrath of God is nothing more than the inherent consequences of sinful actions. This wrath is visited on us very much like the wrath of gravity is visited on those who fail to support themselves in space.
God's wrath is a childish, anthropocentric perspective of the consequences of evil. There is no wrath. But love looks like wrath from the point of view of the sinner - so the Bible speaks of it that way.
--------------------
"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
Freddy, I'm not sure that he is missing to point actually. What I find interesting is your confidence in deciding exactly what sins God has been overlooking and, presumably, your confidence that it only applies to stuff that has happened to the innocent. However, what I'd like to know is whether you really do consider the vast majority of humanity to be more sinned against than sinning.
As for your examples from scripture of the sort of sins that God has been overlooking I would simply point out that you don't necessariliy need to look back to the OT to find stuff that God has been overlooking, the book of Romans itself opens with a fairly comprehensive list and subsequent exegesis that establishes precisely what sort of sins Paul is taking about.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Freddy, I'm not sure that he is missing to point actually. What I find interesting is your confidence in deciding exactly what sins God has been overlooking and, presumably, your confidence that it only applies to stuff that has happened to the innocent. However, what I'd like to know is whether you really do consider the vast majority of humanity to be more sinned against than sinning.
As I understand it, the biblical paradigm is that Israel is God's people, the good guys, but that they are oppressed by their enemies for reasons that are basically their own fault. God's promise is that someday He will liberate His people, restore peace, and that then the people really will follow Him and behave themselves.
The Christian interpretation is that all those who follow Christ are God's people, and that we are oppressed, not by literal physical enemies, but by sin. This is basically our own fault, but the promise is that God will liberate us, and has liberated us, if we believe and obey Him.
So the injusitce is that sin, and its purveyors, continue to prosper.
It isn't so much that the vast majority of humanity is more sinned against than sinning, but that we are all victims of sin, or slaves of sin, and need to be set free. This is a theme that Jesus addressed directly:
quote:
John 8:31 “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
I think that this pretty much sums up Jesus' message.
So, no, this isn't just about stuff that happens to the innocent. It is about all of us and our unrighteousness.
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
As for your examples from scripture of the sort of sins that God has been overlooking I would simply point out that you don't necessarily need to look back to the OT to find stuff that God has been overlooking, the book of Romans itself opens with a fairly comprehensive list and subsequent exegesis that establishes precisely what sort of sins Paul is taking about.
Yes, it's a great list. These are the things that we need to be liberated from. These are the things that oppress the human race.
--------------------
"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 craigb:
In all this talk about Gods Wrath, could someone please explain what Gods wrath is?
Thanks craig b
God's wrath is God's settled animosity towards the dark exchange (Romans 1.23 & 25), the fruit of that dark exchange, and those that approve of, and wilfully practice, that exchange.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Thanks for the clarification Freddy, that sounds more recognizable.
I think what it would need then is to work out how the imagery of demons and devil has a real connection with evil in our own lives and world, so people can connect to the meaning behind this ancient world view.
Maybe it is an ancient worldview, but I also think that it is a common one.
I remember an old Disney film featuring Jimminy Cricket in which an angel and a devil sat on his shoulders giving him conflicting advice. It is a common cartoon scenario that people easily identify with.
Everyone experiences these kinds of internal dialogues between conflicting thoughts and desires. We do not often think of them as contests between angels and demons, but this is not an uncommon Christian perspective on what goes on within the human mind and heart.
Lewis' "Screwtape Letters" remains popular with Christians because it strikes a sensible chord built on this common perspective.
The CV explanation is that people are in some unconscious way influenced by deep spiritual forces. These forces are connected with God, heaven and hell, and there is a kind of contest between them. Cartoon theology pictures this as angels and demons sitting on our shoulders. Biblical theology depicts the inhabitants of heaven and hell as exercising some kind of influence on us, but it is never clear how they do this and whether it is actual or metaphoric.
In any case, modern Christianity in no way repudiates the influence of heaven and hell on humanity. CV simply reinforces the idea that there is a contest between these influences. It asserts that God has fundamentally won this contest, and so we can expect that justice and righteousness will eventually prevail in tangible ways in this world.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I also think it needs to be explained how CV is not simply a victory motif to tack onto a legal paradigm of punitive justice, but provides its own paradigm through which we can understand justice, sin, and salvation.
I'm not sure what you mean.
The CV paradigm is that there is a contest between good and evil in this world, and that God came into the world and won the victory.
The meaning, I think, is that the world has been saved from the destruction that was imminent before the Incarnation, and that over time justice and righteousness will be seen to prevail everywhere.
The meaning for the individual is that there is an internal contest in everyone between good and evil, and that we can "win" the contest if we can hear and obey Jesus' words. In this way He gives us strength, and wins the victory for us.
The paradigm is the most basic and universally understood approach to problem solving. Everyone knows that solutions to all problems are about the aquisition of knowledge and its application to the problem. When you solve the problem you "win" and this is what CV is about.
Justice, sin, and salvation easily fit into this paradigm. Justice is achieved by ridding the world of sin. Sin is overcome through knowledge and understanding from God that acts to convince people to willingly change the way they think and act. Salvation is what happens as a result of these actions by God to change humanity.
I'm not sure that I understand how this can be seen as a victory motif to tack onto a legal paradigm of punitive justice. It has nothing to do with God punishing the world. It is about God changing the world through His own interaction with evil itself, making it possible for people to live happy lives free of the slavery of sin.
--------------------
"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
Perhaps this is a 'pond difference' again but you are not understanding what I'm saying.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Johnny says to Freddy,
"Christ's blood clearly does none of the things you say objectively or none of us living after him would sin."
You'll need to demonstrate that, not simply assert it. What Freddy said biblically speaking was quite accurate. It is your conclusion that is mistaken.
I wasn't refering to the teaching of scripture but plain observable fact. If Christ had defeated the power of sin (which he has) then any atonement model (CV or PSA) has to cope with the fact that Christians still sin.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
"Now I can just about understand how PSA works here - there is the famous case in America of a court ruling where a man refused to accept his own pardon and so was executed. As it were the legal metaphor 'works'. I can't see how Christ's blood can cleanse me (in a CV way) by faith though. It is just hand waving stuff."
Here you seem to be implying that PSA is appropriated by faith, where as CV is automatic. Nothing could be further from the truth. As far as how salvation works (by grace through faith) there is zero difference between CV and PSA.
Not at all. I was claiming that both models appropriate Christ's work by faith, but I was concentrating on the mechanism of both - in response to your question!
Any model must have contact points as well as differences with reality, otherwise it has no real use. I cited a legal example as a 'contact point' between PSA and real life. Talk of the blood of Christ 'cleansing' me of my sins is helpful and biblical but it begs the question - how? (There must be a connection between the sign and the thing signified ... if someone falls overboard on ship I don't run to the lifejacket sign and throw the sign into the water, but go to the box the sign is pointing to!) I believe PSA provides a 'contact' point between the cleansing metaphor and the real world.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
The difference is that CV offers a more nuanced understanding of the problem and the solution. It on the one hand says that God's wrath stands against us because of our sin, so we are God's enemies, but at the same time that God loves his enmeies and desires mercy.
okay ... but so far I don't see any difference from PSA.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Wrath and law are not simply iron clad rules to be obeyed by God, but have themselves become fallen and have now "what was holy through sin has become death to us" as Paul says. So God not only needs to overcome our personal fallenness, but also the falleness of the law, wrath, condemnation, religion, and authority that have equally become fallen and are in need of redemption.
I think you need to read Romans again. Paul makes it clear that the law is 'holy, righteous, good' (Romans 6: 12). His argument is that, although sin uses the law to 'become death to us' it is not because there is anything wrong with the law. We are at fault, not the law.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Because PSA works in a legal framework it can only be individual and external, There is no concept in the definition that speaks of sin on an institutional or structural level (so it is ignored) and there is no concept of how an inner change is effected in us (so the doctrine of sanctification is tacked on artificially). Because of this it only offers a superficial understanding of sin and salvation that amounts to acquittal. As if the only problem was God being mad rather than sin being like a cancer in us. So PSA gets so stuck on one line of thought in the Bible (the idea of wrath) than it ignores all the others. For this reason PSA has yet to fully grasp the gravity of sin and is sub-biblical, a half-truth.
I think Numpty has already replied to this but I think you are trying to turn a strength into a weakness. The strength of PSA is that it emphasises a personal responsibility for sin. If you are claiming that some read 'individual' for 'personal' then that is why we need all biblical models! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
"Why do we need to compact it? Was the definition I offered so very long?"
Now you are just being difficult. Unless you have a substantive problem with the definition we will stick with this:
Christ bears the penalty of our sin, so that God can uphold the demands of righteousness to punish sin. That demand being fulfilled for us in Christ, we are “off the hook”, so to speak.
Let's get this straight. You asked me for a defintion. I supplied one. You did not comment on whether you agreed or disagreed with it, but simply offered another one instead (not replacing the odd term but essentially giving a completely different definition). Then when I was puzzled by your response you accused me of 'being difficult'. Again this may be a 'pond differences' thing and so sorry if I come across as 'shirty' but it comes across to me as rather patronising to ask for a definition and then simply replace it without interacting with the first one. If there are reasons why you prefer your new one to the one I offered then tell me so that I have something to engage with.
[ 14. July 2007, 16:45: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Perhaps this is a 'pond difference' again but you are not understanding what I'm saying.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Johnny says to Freddy,
"Christ's blood clearly does none of the things you say objectively or none of us living after him would sin."
You'll need to demonstrate that, not simply assert it. What Freddy said biblically speaking was quite accurate. It is your conclusion that is mistaken.
I wasn't refering to the teaching of scripture but plain observable fact. If Christ had defeated the power of sin (which he has) then any atonement model (CV or PSA) has to cope with the fact that Christians still sin.
Maybe you read my comment on this above, but I will repeat it.
Christ's defeat of the power of sin sets us free, it does not obliterate sin. We are therefore free to sin or not sin, whereas before humanity was in danger of being ruled by sin.
Christ's words give us power to resist sin if we choose to use that power by calling on Him and obeying His word.
Plain observable facts do, it is true, show that not everyone does this, and so sin continues to plague us.
Christ's victory is nevertheless real. It saves everyone who is willing to follow Him. In the long run it will bring peace on earth and bring on an era in which His will is done on earth as it is in heaven. At least that is how I read it.
--------------------
"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 Freddy:
Maybe you read my comment on this above, but I will repeat it.
Christ's defeat of the power of sin sets us free, it does not obliterate sin. We are therefore free to sin or not sin, whereas before humanity was in danger of being ruled by sin.
Christ's words give us power to resist sin if we choose to use that power by calling on Him and obeying His word.
Plain observable facts do, it is true, show that not everyone does this, and so sin continues to plague us.
Christ's victory is nevertheless real. It saves everyone who is willing to follow Him. In the long run it will bring peace on earth and bring on an era in which His will is done on earth as it is in heaven. At least that is how I read it.
Sorry Freddy if it appeared that I was ignoring your comment. I generally agree with you but the question I was asking was this - how does faith in Christ give us this power? I fully appreciate that ultimately it is a mystery but if we give up too easily then we have no way of evaluating different atonement models.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Sorry, I missed this earlier.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
God's wrath is very much like the wrath of a loving parent. There isn't really any wrath at all, but the child thinks that there is because he or she hears the parent speaking sternly and sees the parent's serious face.
The biblical wrath of God is nothing more than the inherent consequences of sinful actions. This wrath is visited on us very much like the wrath of gravity is visited on those who fail to support themselves in space.
God's wrath is a childish, anthropocentric perspective of the consequences of evil. There is no wrath. But love looks like wrath from the point of view of the sinner - so the Bible speaks of it that way.
This reminds me of CS Lewis (hardly an evangelical!). I think it was in his 'Letters to Malcolm' that he has an exchange about God's anger at sinful humanity. It is suggested that God's wrath is as bit like electricity ... if you touch the bare cable you get electrocuted. To which CS Lewis responded very pessimistically - in which case we are all doomed ... the angry can forgive, but electricity can't!
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Sorry Freddy if it appeared that I was ignoring your comment. I generally agree with you but the question I was asking was this - how does faith in Christ give us this power? I fully appreciate that ultimately it is a mystery but if we give up too easily then we have no way of evaluating different atonement models.
It is an important question. How does faith give us power?
I think that the answer is that the power is held in the information itself when it is accepted. Christ's words in our minds enable us to act in obedience to Him. Without them we do not have this power. If we have that information, and understand it, have faith in it, accept it, and agree with it, we are then able to act on it by His power.
It seems to me that this is a common-sense approach. It is a fairly universal idea that knowledge is power. The Bible teaches this on virtually every page.
A more sophisticated understanding of the concept is that since all power rests in God and flows out from Him alone, the real question is actually how humans can access that power.
As I understand it, the idea is that life is continually flowing out from God, creating and sustaining everything in the universe moment to moment. As He is omnipresent, and everywhere the same, the variety of creation is accounted for by the fact that everything in creation is limited, and so it receives that universal life in its own unique, but limited, way, according to its form and makeup.
In a nutshell, information causes subtle chemical and structural changes in the brain, allowing it to receive God's life slightly differently moment to moment, as a person learns, believes, obeys, or otherwise reacts to that information. The cumulative effect of a lifetime of subtle changes caused by everything that went into a person's life - information, choices, actions, etc. - is what determines a person's ultimate fate. You can say that it is faith that determines this, but faith is really shorthand for a whole process of learning, understanding, believing and acting - all made possible by freely given grace.
This is how I understand that faith gives us power.
[ 14. July 2007, 18:49: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Johnny S:
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.
So then, let me compact that a bit:
Christ bears the penalty of our sin, so that God can uphold the demands of righteousness to punish sin. That demand being fulfilled for us in Christ, we are “off the hook”, so to speak.
Does that work for you as a rough definition?
This is all very odd. Why did Jesus teach us (Matthew 5:38f) not to retaliate while God himself demands massive retaliation?
If the good news is focussed on the cross, what was the good news he told his disciples to preach (Luke 9:6) BEFORE the cross?
If Jesus died to pay the price of our sins, how does that square with his proclamation of the year of Jubilee, where all debts are unilaterally written off?
--------------------
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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If the good news is focussed on the cross, what was the good news he told his disciples to preach (Luke 9:6) BEFORE the cross?
Good question. Also, the cross itself was a symbol that Jesus used before He went to the cross Himself:
quote:
Matthew 10:38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.
Matthew 16:24 "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me."
Mark 10:21 “One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.”
Luke 9:23 “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me.
Luke 14:27 And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.
The cross was evidently a widely understood symbol for struggle and suffering. The message seems to be that everyone needs to be willing to struggle and suffer if they wish to follow Jesus.
--------------------
"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 leo:
Why did Jesus teach us (Matthew 5:38f) not to retaliate while God himself demands massive retaliation?
Who said PSA is about God's retaliation? We've discussed punishment at length on this and other threads but I don't think anyone has tried to limit 'punishment' to retaliation.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If the good news is focussed on the cross, what was the good news he told his disciples to preach (Luke 9:6) BEFORE the cross?
That is an interesting question but how does it help in our discussion of atonement models? I could imagine all sorts of answers you could give to that question whatever atonement model you held.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If Jesus died to pay the price of our sins, how does that square with his proclamation of the year of Jubilee, where all debts are unilaterally written off?
We've looked at this before and not really come to any conclusion. The year of jubilee was not about spreadsheets being erased it was supposed to mean the wholesale return of (e.g.) property to their original owners. It was not just about 'cancelling debt' but also involved 'repaying' physical things. My Father is self-employed and knows a lot about writing off debts - he will tell you how costly that is. I know we have a welfare state in the UK but there is always a cost to someone.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
the cross itself was a symbol that Jesus used before He went to the cross Himself:
The cross was evidently a widely understood symbol for struggle and suffering. The message seems to be that everyone needs to be willing to struggle and suffer if they wish to follow Jesus.
Freddy, it may be an issue we need to wrestle with but it is to do with objective vs. subjective understandings of the cross (not CV vs. PSA). Everyone would agree with you about the subjective aspect to the cross, we have been arguing over the objective aspect to it.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Everyone would agree with you about the subjective aspect to the cross, we have been arguing over the objective aspect to it.
You're right. Good point.
So how do you think that faith gives us power?
--------------------
"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
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
Numpty, If you would like to post a definition of what you think PSA is, I will respond to that.
You don't get to comment however on my response to Freddy's definition. That amounts to the logical fallacy of "bait and switch" or "moving target".
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Isn't this one of the most common charges against God that we talk about here on the Ship? How can there be a God if He allows evil to exist and prosper the way it does? Paul is simply articulating the problem of evil, and Piper is missing the point.
I think this is spot on Freddy. I would add here that the "righteousness that is revealed" that Paul is speaking of was the big discovery of Luther in his "Turmerlebnis". Piper is also missing this point. The righteousness of God, Luther says is not a punishing one where we get our due (which would be bad news), but one where God acts to make us right (good news).
This THE central point of Luther, and therefore of Reformation Christianity. Yet most Calvinists do not understand this and think of justice and righteousness in terms of punishing and wrath. The very thing that Luther rejected. To Luther this was HUGE because it was as Luther said the very Gospel. Miss this point and you have missed the Gospel of grace. It is however ironically exactly this point which many Calvinists miss.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Isn't this one of the most common charges against God that we talk about here on the Ship? How can there be a God if He allows evil to exist and prosper the way it does? Paul is simply articulating the problem of evil, and Piper is missing the point.
I think this is spot on Freddy. I would add here that the "righteousness that is revealed" that Paul is speaking of was the big discovery of Luther in his "Turmerlebnis". Piper is also missing this point. The righteousness of God, Luther says is not a punishing one where we get our due (which would be bad news), but one where God acts to make us right (good news).
This THE central point of Luther, and therefore of Reformation Christianity. Yet most Calvinists do not understand this and think of justice and righteousness in terms of punishing and wrath. The very thing that Luther rejected. To Luther this was HUGE because it was, as Luther said, the very Gospel. Miss this point and you have missed the Gospel of grace. It is however ironically exactly this point which many Calvinists miss.
--------------------
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:
This THE central point of Luther, and therefore of Reformation Christianity. Yet most Calvinists do not understand this and think of justice and righteousness in terms of punishing and wrath. The very thing that Luther rejected. To Luther this was HUGE because it was, as Luther said, the very Gospel. Miss this point and you have missed the Gospel of grace.
Very nicely put. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
In my denomination it is said that therefore shunning evils as sins against God is the Christian religion itself.
--------------------
"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
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
Johnny, all of the comments I made apply equally to you longer definition. So let me say it again with your longer definition:
“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”.
As I said it this definition deals with sin on an artificial external level and ignores the bondage and inner rot of sin that we need to be cleansed from. Jesus said that "the sick need a doctor" but PSA (as defined above) simply gives them a clean bill of health without curing the disease. It thus offers a superficial understandings of what Christ really did on the cross and the grace available through faith in his blood.
CV in contrast takes into account the full biblical picture (including wrath and substitution) understood in a relational rather than legal paradigm which is the central leitmotif of Scripture. The above definition, if focusing on the legal, misses the main focus of Scripture and the NT which is relational.
--------------------
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 truth setting us free, but there is an element that I find missing in your explanation. Salvation is at its root not so much about a change in behavior as it is a change identity - going from being a child of the devil with a hurtful identity that expresses itself in hurt, to becoming a child of God who acts like a king's kid by loving as she is loved.
So a big part of the change is not in just knowing facts (as freeing as that is), but in being known relationally, in being loved by God. It is that experience of being loved by God that transforms us, and makes us new creations with a new identity.
--------------------
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:
I agree with what you say about truth setting us free, but there is an element that I find missing in your explanation. Salvation is at its root not so much about a change in behavior as it is a change identity - going from being a child of the devil with a hurtful identity that expresses itself in hurt, to becoming a child of God who acts like a king's kid by loving as she is loved.
So a big part of the change is not in just knowing facts (as freeing as that is), but in being known relationally, in being loved by God. It is that experience of being loved by God that transforms us, and makes us new creations with a new identity.
Absolutely. The knowledge is only a tool.
The grace of God is how He works to transform a person who applies it to their life, and make them into a new person, with a new identity, a new name.
At least that is how I understand it.
I'm not sure if this is the same as the experience of being loved by God - although that is certainly the reality of it.
--------------------
"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 sharktacos:
As I said it this definition deals with sin on an artificial external level and ignores the bondage and inner rot of sin that we need to be cleansed from. Jesus said that "the sick need a doctor" but PSA (as defined above) simply gives them a clean bill of health without curing the disease. It thus offers a superficial understandings of what Christ really did on the cross and the grace available through faith in his blood.
I think we are still talking passed each other here. PSA does articulate a change of identity - sin is condemned in Christ and his righteousness is imputed to us. The 'receiving the penalty of the curse in Adam' and 'receiving new life in Christ' fits perfectly with PSA. The argument from Paul, e.g. in Ephesians 4 v 1 is - 'become what you are' ... in other words, you already have a new identity in Christ, you have been adopted into a new family, now start acting like it! As far as I can see this argument works the same for CV as for PSA. The question is over the mechanism of how the new identity comes about. It is here that I think PSA has the edge. PSA points to the new creation ('me' as in my old self is crucified with Christ and raises with him) where as CV is merely a 'patch up job on the old self' (sin is destroyed but I'm still my old self).
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
CV in contrast takes into account the full biblical picture (including wrath and substitution) understood in a relational rather than legal paradigm which is the central leitmotif of Scripture. The above definition, if focusing on the legal, misses the main focus of Scripture and the NT which is relational.
This argument only works if you want one particular atonement model to reign supreme. I prefer a more Christ centred approach ( ) where all bibilical models serve one another!
[ 16. July 2007, 08:47: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Sorry, been absent for a while due to work committments.
Just skim-reading the last couple of days, I'd like to comment on a few points.
Johnny:
quote:
I think we are still talking passed each other here. PSA does articulate a change of identity - sin is condemned in Christ and his righteousness is imputed to us. The 'receiving the penalty of the curse in Adam' and 'receiving new life in Christ' fits perfectly with PSA. The argument from Paul, e.g. in Ephesians 4 v 1 is - 'become what you are' ... in other words, you have already have a new identity in Christ, you have been adopted into a new family, now start acting like it! As far as I can see this argument works the same for CV as for PSA. The question is over the mechanism of how the new identity comes about. It is here that I think PSA has the edge. PSA points to the new creation ('me' as in my old self is crucified with Christ and raises with him) where as CV is merely a 'patch up job on the old self' (sin is destroyed but I'm still my old self).
I'm not sure where you get the idea that CV is merely a "patch-up job on the old self" from. AFAICS both schemas have, as an integral part of them, the regeneration, by the power of the Spirit, of the believer. As Paul says, "It is no longer I that live, but Christ that lives in me". I can't even get a rizla between the two models on this! I know I've said this about a zillion times before, but I really don't think we should forget that the term "sin" can refer, both to the things we do that are displeasing to God, and to the old, corrupted human nature, what Paul calls the "flesh". Although CV, (and, it seems, certain slants on PSA (as expressed by Numpty) does not depend on the atonement for forgiveness of sins, the regeneration of the whole of creation, and also, with that, ourselves, is precisely what the Atonement achieves. (We can argue about whether that is in potential, or in actuality, but that is a different matter).
quote:
Personally I think that is what this is all about - does God show wrath to unrepentant sinners / is God the enemy of those who reject him? Yes = PSA. No = CV.
Yes, that is indeed one of the main differences. Put another way, PSA assumes that, all things being equal, without the Atonement, man is God's enemy. CV assumes that God is man's enemy.
quote:
We've looked at this before and not really come to any conclusion. The year of jubilee was not about spreadsheets being erased it was supposed to mean the wholesale return of (e.g.) property to their original owners. It was not just about 'cancelling debt' but also involved 'repaying' physical things. My Father is self-employed and knows a lot about writing off debts - he will tell you how costly that is. I know we have a welfare state in the UK but there is always a cost to someone.
I agree wholeheartedly with what you have written here, John, but surely this just demonstrates that God's idea of justice is the undoing of the action which brings the debt in the first place. Of course, this is at God's expense, we are all agreed upon that, (literally, in the case of Jubilee, as all the land was really owned by God, merely held in trust by the people who "owned" it), but the paradigm is of restoration, not retribution.
Numpty, I really quite like that Piper quote. However, I am not convinced totally that God is that worried about how He is portrayed by his creatures, and if He were so worried, I think, like Freddy, that He would be more concerned at the unjust fate of the "innocent" (i.e. why is there suffering) rather than why do the guilty not suffer, though I give you that it is the implication of Romans 3:25. I guess I would see the emphasis in the verse as "demonstrate His justice" rather than "forbearance" In other words, He is explaining something which had always been in the light of a new revelation - how the cross shows what God's justice is like.
I do, however, like the "de-anthropocentrizing" (IYKWIM ) of the Atonement, as I see it myself as basically a cosmic event. Jesus was reconciling, not only his human creation, but the whole of the created order. (memo to self, "must read some more Piper")
originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Everyone would agree with you about the subjective aspect to the cross, we have been arguing over the objective aspect to it.
You're right. Good point.
So how do you think that faith gives us power?
I'm not sure it is the faith that gives us the power, as such. It's more that the power for sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit in mediating God's grace to us. It is He who gives us the power. The faith bit is the way that we see this operating, such that we gain benefit from it. Faith is the way in which we perceive the Kingdom of God, our "spiritual eyes", if you like. But then, I'm a supernaturalist.
--------------------
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 Jolly Jape:
I'm not sure where you get the idea that CV is merely a "patch-up job on the old self" from.
I don't really think CV is like that - it was just a bit of rhetoric to get your attention. It seems to have worked.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
AFAICS both schemas have, as an integral part of them, the regeneration, by the power of the Spirit, of the believer. As Paul says, "It is no longer I that live, but Christ that lives in me". I can't even get a rizla between the two models on this! I know I've said this about a zillion times before, but I really don't think we should forget that the term "sin" can refer, both to the things we do that are displeasing to God, and to the old, corrupted human nature, what Paul calls the "flesh". Although CV, (and, it seems, certain slants on PSA (as expressed by Numpty) does not depend on the atonement for forgiveness of sins, the regeneration of the whole of creation, and also, with that, ourselves, is precisely what the Atonement achieves. (We can argue about whether that is in potential, or in actuality, but that is a different matter).
Just as you cite Numpty as an example of a nuanced PSA similarly I can see how the way you explain CV there is no 'rizla' (I assume that it isn't a giant rizla ) between them on this issue - however, I think that, just as PSA on its own can lead towards distorted presentations of the gospel, so CV naturally leads towards ideas of 'sin' being destroyed rather than ourselves being crucified with Christ so that we can receive a new nature.
So I take your point that CV doesn't have to look that way, but then PSA doesn't have to 'look that way' either!
Equally please remember that I was replying to the accusation that PSA only deals with sin and does not offer a new nature.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Put another way, PSA assumes that, all things being equal, without the Atonement, man is God's enemy. CV assumes that God is man's enemy.
I disagree. Both models assume that God is man's enemy, the debate is over whether or not man is God's enemy (and if he was what that actually means.)
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I agree wholeheartedly with what you have written here, John, but surely this just demonstrates that God's idea of justice is the undoing of the action which brings the debt in the first place. Of course, this is at God's expense, we are all agreed upon that, (literally, in the case of Jubilee, as all the land was really owned by God, merely held in trust by the people who "owned" it), but the paradigm is of restoration, not retribution.
My point was that the paradigm is restoration through God paying the penalty himself. I don't see it as either / or.
I don't see it as retribution but as God demonstrating just how serious sin is. This is not about persuading God to forgive us but it is about acknowledging that sin is serious. When I discipline my children I am constantly caught between forgiving them and loving them (a good thing to do!) and unintentionally implying that what they have done doesn't really matter because it was just a 'small matter' to forgive them. This is reflected in the way that, in our culture, if someone apologises for something we often reply, 'oh, it doesn't matter.'
Now, again, I know that your view of CV does treat sin very seriously. This is just about the 'impression' that atonement models bring. If some feel that PSA needs a more CV view to balance it then I think CV needs PSA likewise.
I know that you'll be frustrated by these comments because you will feel that they don't represent CV fairly. But that is the point. Any model will produce something of a caricature as it works itself out into popular preaching and communication. If the PSA that stands behind popular preaching is a lot more nuanced than first expected then we should equally expect that a more nuanced view of CV will produce somewhat of a caricature as it filters out into the 'mainstream'.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Sorry, been absent for a while due to work committments.
We have missed you. It doesn't seem fair that work should get in the way like that. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm not sure where you get the idea that CV is merely a "patch-up job on the old self" from. AFAICS both schemas have, as an integral part of them, the regeneration, by the power of the Spirit, of the believer. As Paul says, "It is no longer I that live, but Christ that lives in me".
I agree. It just works differently in the two models.
According to CV a person is regenerated through the struggle against sin. The person seems to himself or herself to work hard to overcome bad habits and desires, but it is Christ working in him or her. As a result of this struggle the old self gradually dies, and a new, better, self is born. Christ lives within them.
According to PSA, as I understand it, a person is regenerated by faith through the freely given gift of the Holy Spirit. The focus is not on the inner struggle against sin, but on the removal of God's wrath through the imputation of Christ's righteousness. The new, better, self is born as this wrath is removed and the Holy Spirit enters.
Is this right?
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm not sure it is the faith that gives us the power, as such. It's more that the power for sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit in mediating God's grace to us. It is He who gives us the power. The faith bit is the way that we see this operating, such that we gain benefit from it.
Yes, that's it. The power is God's. The question is how we receive it from Him.
As I see it, faith, and the resulting obedience, open the way. The power of knowledge is that it is the objective key to a subjective process.
--------------------
"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 sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Isn't this one of the most common charges against God that we talk about here on the Ship? How can there be a God if He allows evil to exist and prosper the way it does? Paul is simply articulating the problem of evil, and Piper is missing the point.
I think this is spot on Freddy. I would add here that the "righteousness that is revealed" that Paul is speaking of was the big discovery of Luther in his "Turmerlebnis". Piper is also missing this point. The righteousness of God, Luther says is not a punishing one where we get our due (which would be bad news), but one where God acts to make us right (good news).
This THE central point of Luther, and therefore of Reformation Christianity. Yet most Calvinists do not understand this and think of justice and righteousness in terms of punishing and wrath. The very thing that Luther rejected. To Luther this was HUGE because it was, as Luther said, the very Gospel. Miss this point and you have missed the Gospel of grace. It is however ironically exactly this point which many Calvinists miss.
Ultimately, the "righteousness from God" is nothing less than Christ himself. Proponents of PSA do not, as you suggest, conflate the "righteousness from God" and the "wrath of God": that assertion simply isn't true.
The "righteousness of God" and the "wrath of God" are not the same thing and no Calvinist that I've ever read has suggested that they are, quite the reverse in fact. However, it is by means of this "righteousness from God" - namely Christ - (Romans 3.22 & Phil. 3.9) giving himself to us and for us that the wrath of God is satisfied. The hymn Rock of Ages puts it well:
quote:
Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in Thee;
Let the water and the blood,
From Thy wounded side which flowed,
Be of sin the double cure;
Save from wrath and make me pure.
The point is this: Christ is broken (cleft) so that we might 'hide' in him (Galatians 2.20).
Christ crucified is the only means of mortification of sin that God has provided. The answer to the question, 'How can I kill my sin?' is simply this: die with Christ. We are called into mystical union with Christ in his death because only in Christ's death is there sufficient provision of grace for us obey the command to kill sin (Romans 8.13,14).
The righteousness that comes from God becomes ours through union with Christ in his risen righteousness only if we undergo mortification of sin through union with him in his death (Romans 6.1-11). The justification that this brings is immediate in the sense that once our sin is dead we become, through union with the risen Christ, righteous in God's sight. The sanctification, however, is progressive because is requires the ongoing activity (again by grace) of penitent faith as the means by which post-regenerate sin is brought daily to Christ's death as the sufficient and effective means of destroying it.
Christ willingly becomes the locus - the only place graciously provided by God - where God's wrath becomes an accessible and effectual power for the survivable killing of sin. The reason we can survive is because Christ is sinless and risen. We die to sin with and in Christ; we live to God in and with Christ. Christ is the means by which the wrath of God becomes the means of both justification and sanctification instead of destruction and death. Union with Christ is all. The wrath of God experienced in Christ mortfiies sin and raises the sinner; the wrath of God out of Christ destroys both sin and condemns sinner.
On the cross Christ becames the locus of God's settled animosity towards sin so that through union with him we can die to that sin and live to God. Christ in a very real sense becomes the indestructible life in which our sin can be destroyed. Paradoxically we are saved from wrath by entering into that wrath in and through Christ.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
God put [Christ] forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed. (Romans 3:25)
Boil that down to the most basic problem the death of Christ is meant to solve. God put Christ forward (he sent him to die) in order to demonstrate his righteousness (or justice). The problem that needed solving was that God, for some reason, seemed to be unrighteous, and wanted to vindicate himself and clear his name. That is the basic issue. God's righteousness is at stake. His name or reputation or honor must be vindicated. Before the cross can be for our sake, it must be for God's sake.
But what created that problem? Why did God face the problem of needing to give a public vindication of his righteousness? The answer is in the last phrase of verse 25: "because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed."
Now what does that mean? It means that for centuries God had been doing what Psalm 103:10 says, "He does not deal with us according to our sins or repay us according to our iniquities." He has been passing over thousands of sins. He has been forgiving them and letting them go and not punishing them.
The writer's main point is that contemporary articulations of the atonement have become radically anthropocentric. Human beings, and the needs of humanity, become the primary lens through which the crucifixion is viewed. The writer I quoted, who happens to be John Piper, takes a more theocentric view of the passage that is currently being discussed in this thread. For the whole article, which I think, makes interesting reading click here.
Read the article. Works for me...
--------------------
"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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
According to CV a person is regenerated through the struggle against sin. The person seems to himself or herself to work hard to overcome bad habits and desires, but it is Christ working in him or her. As a result of this struggle the old self gradually dies, and a new, better, self is born. Christ lives within them.
According to PSA, as I understand it, a person is regenerated by faith through the freely given gift of the Holy Spirit. The focus is not on the inner struggle against sin, but on the removal of God's wrath through the imputation of Christ's righteousness. The new, better, self is born as this wrath is removed and the Holy Spirit enters.
Is this right?
That's not quite how I understand it, Freddy. If I might deal firstly with how I understand the process works under PSA, I think the term "imputed righteousness" is a bit of a tangential issue. Not all adherents of PSA regard it as crucial to their model, and there is a considerable amout of debate as to whether the term is useful at all. I think the standard PSA position would be that (and here, also, I think that there are various nuances) we (that is, our old sinful self) is put to death with Jesus on the cross. Through our identification with Him, our sins are punished, the law is satisfied (with His vicarious death) leaving the way of communion between Created and creature open. But we are also resurrected with Him, and part of the fruits of that resurrection is that our spirit is made alive to God, in the Power of the Holy Spirit. As we continue to keep that pathway open, by living lives of repentance (see Numpty's earlier post), He lives through us, changing our motivation and animating our spirits towards God.
Our bodies, though, are still subject, prior to the general resurrection, to our corrupted desires, so that, in this life there is always a conflict between the Spirit given desire to do good arising from our regenerated spirits, and the baser, fleshly impulses to go our own way, which are typical of our fallen and compromised "souls" (mind, emotions, etc).
We need, therefore, to keep being renewed ourselves, through prayer, the sacraments (contoversial to some), reading the scriptures, worship etc, pace Romans 12. This is not so much a work of the flesh, as a divine work into whose way we need to put ourselves. The transformation is His task, the enabling of that transformation, the "giving of permission" if you like, is ours.
All of which, it has to be said, is not so very different from my understanding of how it works for CV, if you take it with your understanding of the wrath of God (which I do) and the implication of this for our understanding of the law.
My impression from the many things that you have posted, is that you would think this lays too little emphasis on our responsibility for living a godly life, and yet you are very clear that the ability so to do is dependant on God's power, and not on our own efforts.
I agree with you that CV does imply a change in our nature that allows a more "free" (ie less constrained by sin) will, allowing us to choose the Godly way. I'm not, hoewever, sure that this is not also inherent in PSA.
My arguments against PSA are not so much based on the poor standards of life exhibited by some of its followers (in general I have found the lives of most of those who espouse it are exemplary by any standards) but rather what it says about the nature of God, and what are appropriate and effective ways of dealing with sin.
ETA oops, x-posted with Numpty, who puts the PSA argument so much better and with greater subtlety that I do!
[ 16. July 2007, 13:39: 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
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Numpty, If you would like to post a definition of what you think PSA is, I will respond to that.
You don't get to comment however on my response to Freddy's definition. That amounts to the logical fallacy of "bait and switch" or "moving target".
Now I know there is a Hell thread caused by this post - but let me make one thing clear.
sharktacos: Neither you nor any other poster in Purgatory gets to determine who responds to your posts or what they are permitted to say.
Carry on.
Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
If I might deal firstly with how I understand the process works under PSA, I think the term "imputed righteousness" is a bit of a tangential issue. Not all adherents of PSA regard it as crucial to their model, and there is a considerable amout of debate as to whether the term is useful at all.
That's the first time I've heard that.
Johnny, is this true?
As I have understood it, the concept of imputation is a cornerstone of PSA. For example, from the THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST: AN EVANGELICAL CELEBRATION, which I quoted earlier:
quote:
12. We affirm that the doctrine of the imputation (reckoning or counting) both of our sins to Christ and of his righteousness to us, whereby our sins are fully forgiven and we are fully accepted, is essential to the biblical Gospel (2 Cor. 5:19–21).
We deny that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ infused into us or by any righteousness that is thought to inhere within us.
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).
Without imputation I'm not sure how PSA can work.
On the other hand, I am thrilled with the idea of dispensing with it, since I consider it to be a completely wicked doctrine. I think that it is wicked because the understandable zeal to avoid the idea of merit is then allowed to mean that the quality of our life is detached from our salvation.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I think the standard PSA position would be that (and here, also, I think that there are various nuances) we (that is, our old sinful self) is put to death with Jesus on the cross. Through our identification with Him, our sins are punished, the law is satisfied (with His vicarious death) leaving the way of communion between Created and creature open. But we are also resurrected with Him, and part of the fruits of that resurrection is that our spirit is made alive to God, in the Power of the Holy Spirit.
OK. Sure. I agree that this is PSA also. I also agree that our old self is put to death in a similar way to what happened on the cross, and that the two acts represent one another. So I like this version of PSA much better.
But I still don't like it at all, since I don't think that it is possible for us to be identified with Him except representatively, nor is it possible for Him to vicariously bear our sins. And the punishment of sin and consequent satisfaction of the Law is complete nonsense.
Other than that, I like the idea that the point is to open the way between Creator and created, and that we, in a sense, are resurrected with Him on Easter morning - just as He lifted up those who had been previously confined to "Sheol."
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
As we continue to keep that pathway open, by living lives of repentance (see Numpty's earlier post), He lives through us, changing our motivation and animating our spirits towards God.
I definitely like the idea that we continue to keep that pathway open by lives of repentance. I also believe that this is how He changes our motivation and animates our spirits toward God.
Doesn't what I quoted from "THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST: AN EVANGELICAL CELEBRATION" deny that though? Does this mean that this document, which has been, I believe, affirmed by many U.S. denominations, is mistaken?
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
My impression from the many things that you have posted, is that you would think this lays too little emphasis on our responsibility for living a godly life, and yet you are very clear that the ability so to do is dependant on God's power, and not on our own efforts.
That's right. I really think that this apparent contradiction is the sticking point for many people. How can we be responsible if everything depends on God's power?
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I agree with you that CV does imply a change in our nature that allows a more "free" (ie less constrained by sin) will, allowing us to choose the Godly way. I'm not, hoewever, sure that this is not also inherent in PSA.
I agree that this freedom is also inherent in PSA. The difference is that in PSA our salvation does not depend on it.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
My arguments against PSA are not so much based on the poor standards of life exhibited by some of its followers (in general I have found the lives of most of those who espouse it are exemplary by any standards) but rather what it says about the nature of God, and what are appropriate and effective ways of dealing with sin.
I agree with you that it is not about the poor standards of life exhibited by people who are proponents of PSA. I have had good experiences with people like this. On the other hand, I do think that the doctrine does not take sin seriously, and while its eager proponents may refrain from sin on religious grounds, the effect of the doctrine on Christianity as a whole has been to divorce religion from life. Christians, as a whole, are not known world-wide for our exemplary life and culture. I think that PSA has something to do with this.
But I do agree with you about what PSA says about the nature of God, and what are appropriate and effective ways of dealing with sin. Attributing the concept of payment and satisfaction to God is primitive and absurd, in my opinion.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
As I have understood it, the concept of imputation is a cornerstone of PSA. For example, from the THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST: AN EVANGELICAL CELEBRATION, which I quoted earlier:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. We affirm that the doctrine of the imputation (reckoning or counting) both of our sins to Christ and of his righteousness to us, whereby our sins are fully forgiven and we are fully accepted, is essential to the biblical Gospel (2 Cor. 5:19–21).
We deny that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ infused into us or by any righteousness that is thought to inhere within us.
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).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, maybe I put the case a little more strongly than is strictly speaking accurate. A great many proponents of PSA would certainly assent to imputed righteousness. What I was trying, somewhat poorly, to portray, is that imputed righteousness is not necessarily a pcore doctrine of PSA. Frankly, I don't think it makes that much sense to me, either, but that is somewhat tangential.
The problem with IR is, istm, that it is a catch all that covers all positions from the understanding that we are identified with Christ in His resurrection and thus share in His righteous status before the Father, (which, IMHO, is reasonable and scriptural) to the "We are made righteous by Christ, so it doesn't matter what we do, our status before God is one of enjoying His favour, because He looks at us and sees only Christ", which, frankly, tends towards antinomianism. So I'm not sure the term is sufficiently well defined to constitute a core dogma for PSAers. I've heard, in my time, lots of sermons on PSA, but can't think of a single one where the doctine of IR has been specifically taught, or even mentioned much except in passing.
But all that's only my impression. John will have, I'm sure, a more definative POV.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
