|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Christus Victor
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But all that's only my impression. John will have, I'm sure, a more definative POV.
What makes you think that? I'm an 'all shades of grey' kinda guy and not at all into definitive POVs. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Besides don't you think Numpty might want to say something? (Or perhaps he has flown over to the USA for a personal duel with Sharktacos ... that would explain both their disappearances... ummh... pistols or swords ... my money is on the steel.)
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
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.
I can't speak for everyone but I had always assumed that IR was the other side of the coin to PSA. However, I agree with JJ in that I have met some (especially Americans... although I don't know why) who are PSA but don't seem to say much about IR.
As far as antinomianism is concerned:
1. The very fact that Paul had to work so hard to defend 'his' gospel from that charge (e.g. Romans 6 v 1) means that it must have looked like it. (Even if it wasn't!)
2. Any atonement model is going to fluctuate between antinomianism and pelagianism. The flip side of your point is that any atonement view that does not have IR must surely put some weight of salvation on our 'works'? What righteousness did the thief on the cross have at all in his dying breath?
[ 17. July 2007, 15:34: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
What righteousness did the thief on the cross have at all in his dying breath?
My thought is that he was a kindly and well-intentioned individual, who may have snatched a thing or two in his lifetime out of need, but who made heartfelt repentance.
Had he been simply cut down from the cross, as opposed to being cut free of this world, he would have gone on to live an exemplary life.
Our only evidence of this is his remarkable statement on the cross. Jesus, however, evidently saw into his heart and knew that he had truly reformed.
So the example need not justify salvation by faith alone.
--------------------
"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 Johnny S:
I can't speak for everyone but I had always assumed that IR was the other side of the coin to PSA.
Johnny, I'm trying to grasp this statement. I have always thought that IR was the indespensible device that made PSA work. It certainly seems that way in the evangelical statement I quoted above.
How could PSA work without IR? How would Jesus' payment of the penalty be of any use if the result could not be imputed to the average sinner like me?
--------------------
"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:
My thought is that he was a kindly and well-intentioned individual, who may have snatched a thing or two in his lifetime out of need, but who made heartfelt repentance.
Had he been simply cut down from the cross, as opposed to being cut free of this world, he would have gone on to live an exemplary life.
Our only evidence of this is his remarkable statement on the cross. Jesus, however, evidently saw into his heart and knew that he had truly reformed.
So the example need not justify salvation by faith alone.
Freddy you do have a rather active imagination. Let me guess he was driving down the Jerusalem highway off to help some orphans but carelessly went just over the speed limit ... and they crucified him for it. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I'm sure his repentance was heartfelt but you seem to suggest that our salvation rests on what we might do if we get the chance. The simple fact is that he had no 'deeds' or 'fruit' to show for his repentance. And he needed none. Hallelujah, what a Saviour! (Oops ... got a bit carried away there.)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
How could PSA work without IR? How would Jesus' payment of the penalty be of any use if the result could not be imputed to the average sinner like me?
You're asking the wrong person. I do think they go together.
And Freddy, I think you are a much better than average sinner. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Let me guess he was driving down the Jerusalem highway off to help some orphans but carelessly went just over the speed limit ... and they crucified him for it.
That's pretty much how I picture it. A clear example of injustice. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm sure his repentance was heartfelt but you seem to suggest that our salvation rests on what we might do if we get the chance.
Actually, that's it exactly. That's what my denomination teaches.
--------------------
"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 Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
How could PSA work without IR? How would Jesus' payment of the penalty be of any use if the result could not be imputed to the average sinner like me?
You're asking the wrong person. I do think they go together.
Sorry, I misunderstood what you said about the other side of the coin. Now I see that you meant that they are inseparable - which I think as well.
So I'm wondering how JJ means that it is possible to accept PSA but not IR. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
"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:
That's pretty much how I picture it. A clear example of injustice.
Any evidence for this? (especially since on the cross he confessed that he did deserve his punishment!)
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm sure his repentance was heartfelt but you seem to suggest that our salvation rests on what we might do if we get the chance.
Actually, that's it exactly. That's what my denomination teaches.
So what's the point of life then? God can just look at each one of us and know how we are going to respond. It would sure save a lot of suffering and heartache.
[ 17. July 2007, 22:55: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
That's pretty much how I picture it. A clear example of injustice.
Any evidence for this? (especially since on the cross he confessed that he did deserve his punishment!)
Yes, he did confess this, and I think that this is a good sign. The only evidence is his brief statement on Jesus' behalf, and then Jesus' remarkable response to it.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm sure his repentance was heartfelt but you seem to suggest that our salvation rests on what we might do if we get the chance.
Actually, that's it exactly. That's what my denomination teaches.
So what's the point of life then? God can just look at each one of us and know how we are going to respond. It would sure save a lot of suffering and heartache.
The point is that our response is something that changes over time as we learn, grow, and become better people. In the case of the thief, his experience up to that point evidently caused some deep changes to take place in him.
So the point of life is to learn how to be useful members of God's kingdom through a life of learning, obedience, repentance and service. We are not born loving God and the neighbor, but we can learn, through God's power, to have these loves in ourselves.
At any point in our life Jesus would know by a mere glance what we truly love, and what we might do if we get the chance. We might live an exemplary life, but actually be ready to do something naughty if only we had the chance. Similarly, we might live a very difficult, and even immoral life, but actually have been trapped by circumstances and long for a different kind of life, if only we had the chance. Intentions count. Repentance and change are possible.
But I think the truth is that most people do have opportunities, and that their actual choices are a fair representation of what they would do if they had the chance.
This way of seeing it works well with Christus Victor, where life is a contest between good and evil, with Christ fighting on our side.
It does not work, in my opinion, with PSA, which denies that anything we do at any stage of our existence does anything for us that contributes in any way to the ground of our justification.
--------------------
"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:
So I'm wondering how JJ means that it is possible to accept PSA but not IR.
OK, let me try to unpack this a bit. Maybe my understanding of IR is a little flawed, but I take it to refer to the idea that when God looks upon us and our actions, he looks at them through Jesus. It's as if He doesn't see us at all, but only Jesus. It's not just that we share in Jesus righteousness by faith (you might or might not agree with that, but there is at least some biblical support for the idea), or that our sinful nature has been put to death on the Cross, but that (to caricature for the sake of getting across the point) we almost cease to exist from God's point of view. Now it is easy to see where this doctrine originates from. Paul talks repeatedly about us being clothed in Christ, that it is not us that live but Christ that lives in us. But I think Paul was thinking more of a picture of us being united with Christ, which seems to me to be a very different thing. I rather suspect that the phrase at the end of the DB that you quoted:
quote:
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.
is aimed at countering this type of thinking. Certainly, my impression of IR is that it is akin to the righteousness of Christ being infused into us.
But it may just be that I have a defective understanding of IR.
Tangentially, John, I had rather the impression that IR was more popular amongst American Evos than British ones. But it may be the old stereotyping at work.
--------------------
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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
So I'm wondering how JJ means that it is possible to accept PSA but not IR.
OK, let me try to unpack this a bit. Maybe my understanding of IR is a little flawed, but I take it to refer to the idea that when God looks upon us and our actions, he looks at them through Jesus. It's as if He doesn't see us at all, but only Jesus. It's not just that we share in Jesus righteousness by faith (you might or might not agree with that, but there is at least some biblical support for the idea), or that our sinful nature has been put to death on the Cross, but that (to caricature for the sake of getting across the point) we almost cease to exist from God's point of view.
JJ, I think that I can understand what you are meaning here, and how that idea is perhaps not central to PSA. You are talking about how God looks on humanity, and how He therefore regards us. Our virtual ceasing to exist is an understandable caricature of that idea, which is not, I agree, emphasized in PSA.
I think, though, that the real point is about whether or not we have any righteousness.
Are we righteous? Any of us? The obvious answer is that we are not. So the obvious question is "How, then, can we be saved?" To which the PSA answer is that salvation does not depend on our righteousness, but on Christ's righteousness. The question is then "How do we get that righteousness?" The answer is that this righteousness is counted, reckoned, or imputed to us by the forensic (that is, legal) declaration of God.
In case I haven't made myself clear in the past, this is what I consider to be so wicked about PSA. It contradicts Jesus' repeated statements that salvation does depend on our righteousness.
Christus Victor allows for this because Jesus helps us to become righteous by fighting with us in our battles to become so. This means that the power is His and the righteousness is still His, but that we share in it because He is with us and in us, as He says so many times.
The difference could be seen as merely technical, depending on how you define "sharing in it", how you think of Christ's presence within us, and the precise way that you understand "impute." But in practice it really does, I think, amount to whether you think that your salvation depends on obedience to Christ's teachings or not.
--------------------
"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
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
Wow. 19 pages. I couldn’t hope to read it all, I barely have time to compose a halfways lucid response, & really shouldn’t be doing it anyway as I have a ton of other stuff needing done. I hope I’m not retreading the same worn pathways, excuse me (and ignore me) if I do.
But I kinda can’t help it. I see these threads pop up one in a while, and I think, “Are the PSA/IR and Christus Victor things mutually exclusive?” Perhaps that is a valid question for a completely different thread.
For me, to take one and not the other is like saying “No! You must look at the diamond only from this direction! Don’t turn it around, don’t let it flash and shine as you see all the different faces from different points of view!”
Because I am not righteous. I know I never will be this side of Heaven. Everything I do is in some way marred by my sinfulness, either falling short of the mark or aiming in the completely opposite direction, to pick up on the arrow analogy.
Yet He is my righteousness! (I can’t go about digging up verses now, but anyone who hasn’t read that one probably shouldn’t be in on the discussion). And judicially, that righteousness has been imputed to me, I think the Scriptures make that clear.
Freddy, you are right in that imputed righteousness is not actual righteousness. Paul also tells us that we are “predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son.” I think Paul’s writings are full of the idea that the flesh must be crucified, that actual righteousness must come about before we will stand before the Throne.
And I’d go further than Christ sharing in our struggles to become righteous. I’d say that I am His workmanship, as my sig says, created in Christ Jesus to do good works. He shepherds me along, provides the direction, guidance, sustenance. It’s more Him than me, I can tell you that!
I’m in a hurry and this is making less sense than when I was thinking about it in bed last night. But anybody who thinks that PSA is a substitute for actual righteousness just isn’t reading the Scripture. Nevertheless, I think it is also clear that He bore our sins and carried our sorrows in a multitude of ways, cumulating on the Cross, which was ultimate surrender, ultimate victory, and ultimate propitiation.
Someday, I’ll be “purer than gold is, and clearer than glass could ever be” (Rich Mullins, “Can I be with You?). Until then, Christ stands in my place. When the accuser comes, He says, no, that one is mine, bought and paid for.
I think we struggle and try to put a nice clean “one or the other” approach when we are dealing with something almost incomprehensible. There are a variety of illustrations in Scripture dealing with our salvation, including the “redeemed slave” I just alluded to above.
But I gotta go, sorry to horn in. Blessings to you all.
Tom
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
I see these threads pop up one in a while, and I think, “Are the PSA/IR and Christus Victor things mutually exclusive?” Perhaps that is a valid question for a completely different thread.
For me, to take one and not the other is like saying “No! You must look at the diamond only from this direction! Don’t turn it around, don’t let it flash and shine as you see all the different faces from different points of view!”
Thanks for chiming in on this, Tom. Your comments are helpful. It is good to be reminded that we might need to turn the diamond slightly to see it from other directions.
So are PSA and CV mutually exclusive? It seems that way to me because in the one our salvation depends on our righteousness, and in the other it doesn't. Is there a middle ground that makes both true?
--------------------
"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
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
Thank you Freddy.
Gee, maybe I'm not real good at the terms here, or I'm just too steeped in the PSA model. I can't imagine my salvation depending on my righteousness.
That I will one day be righteous, I can imagine. That in order to stand blameless before his Throne, I must be pure enough to stand in his presence (i.e. 100%). I can understand that. I can well understand that after my death that final corrections to my character will be needed.
But in a way I can't explain, it's not my "faithful striving" that does it. He took the initiative, He came, He overcame, He is victor, He is the Champion, He is the Redeemer, he is my Redeemer. He chose me, arrested me, broke me, gave me "repentance unto life." If there's virtue in me, it's because of His work and the work of the Spirit. I don't mean to be overly humble or pious or self-effacing, really I don't, I just can't see it any other way. That is the Victory of Christ that I see. The outcome is never in doubt, I can never be separated from His love, even any "Purgatorial" corrections will be not penal but in the loving embrace of a Father - I will be purged of any remaining impurities of character. But the relationship will be there, moreso even than here. I will finally be able to love the lord my God with all my heart, and my neighbor as myself. There is no way that will happen this side of Heaven, especially if it's my efforts that'll get me there!
I did take a smidge of time to get back to Page 1, and I like what Karl said, and then Callan - that salvation is something Christ accomplishes, rather than merely endure. I'd agree with that take on things even though I've lived with a PSA type viewpoint for a long time.
Sorry, I'm really in a rush.
Blessings,
Tom
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes, he did confess this, and I think that this is a good sign. The only evidence is his brief statement on Jesus' behalf, and then Jesus' remarkable response to it.
Come on Freddy. The only thing we know about this guy is recorded in the gospels. There from his own lips he confesses that he was being punished justly.
At this point I would understand if you replied something like 'this bit of data does not fit my theory but I'm still not convinced' - that would be fair enough. Trying to claim anything else just looks a bit silly.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
This way of seeing it works well with Christus Victor, where life is a contest between good and evil, with Christ fighting on our side.
This is where it all gets a bit vague. How is he fighting on our side? Who is doing the most fighting? If we win is it because of him or us? etc. etc.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
In case I haven't made myself clear in the past, this is what I consider to be so wicked about PSA. It contradicts Jesus' repeated statements that salvation does depend on our righteousness.
Christus Victor allows for this because Jesus helps us to become righteous by fighting with us in our battles to become so. This means that the power is His and the righteousness is still His, but that we share in it because He is with us and in us, as He says so many times.
The difference could be seen as merely technical, depending on how you define "sharing in it", how you think of Christ's presence within us, and the precise way that you understand "impute." But in practice it really does, I think, amount to whether you think that your salvation depends on obedience to Christ's teachings or not.
In this respect I don't see a difference between PSA and CV since 'in Christ' means that his righteousness is my righteousness.
I also think you are barking up the wrong tree about obedience in general. PSA teaches that we are not saved by works but we are saved for works (Ephesians 2: 8-10). Obedience to Christ's teachings is evidence of faith in Christ so in that sense we should expect to see the evidence of obedience of which you speak.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes, he did confess this, and I think that this is a good sign. The only evidence is his brief statement on Jesus' behalf, and then Jesus' remarkable response to it.
Come on Freddy. The only thing we know about this guy is recorded in the gospels. There from his own lips he confesses that he was being punished justly.
At this point I would understand if you replied something like 'this bit of data does not fit my theory but I'm still not convinced' - that would be fair enough. Trying to claim anything else just looks a bit silly.
Johnny, I'm not sure what you are not seeing here. It completely fits my theory.
Sure the thief did all those bad things. But he reformed. He changed. What's wrong with that? Once you change, your past sins are of no consequence in God's eyes. At least that's the way I see it.
Here is how heaven works in my denomination. You die. You wake up in the afterlife. No one asks you what good or bad things you ever did. No one cares about your past at all. All that matters is the kind of person you really are. You pick up life where you left off, and live a normal life in that world. You forget that you are even in another world.
If you are the kind of person who did bad things in the world, you will probably continue to do bad things in the next life. You will associate yourself with bad people. You will have the kind of pleasures, and their opposite, that are inherent in evil. Over time, the torment of those practices will become more and more apparent - and you will flee from them, if you can. But if you are willing to endure the down-side, because you really enjoy the up-side, then you stick with it. That's hell.
But if you get the program, and realize that it is all about love to God and the neighbor, you become increasingly happy. That's heaven.
This is what happened to the thief. His life continued after his death. Jesus' promise of a paradise was not an idle one. He was apparently actually the kind of person who could enjoy the paradise that is heaven.
The trouble with sinful actions is not that they get counted up and that you get punished for them. The problem is that our actions form our inner being, and that over time we become whatever it is that we do. So we form habits and beliefs, and they become harder and harder to change as we continue in them.
This means that it is exceedingly unlikely that a thief on a cross would have a true change of heart that carried over into the next life. But not impossible. Evidently Jesus knew what He was talking about.
Maybe that looks silly. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) But I don't feel silly. I feel fine, really. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
"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 Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
This way of seeing it works well with Christus Victor, where life is a contest between good and evil, with Christ fighting on our side.
This is where it all gets a bit vague. How is he fighting on our side? Who is doing the most fighting? If we win is it because of him or us? etc. etc.
I don't think it is vague at all. It feels as if we do the fighting. The truth is that He does the fighting.
Similarly, it feels as if the victory, and its benefits are ours. The truth is that the victory is His.
The truth is also that we are free to fight or not fight, and that we only actually fight insofar as we attribute the power to Him. What is called "fighting" is actually the same thing as abiding in Jesus.
The point is that we really do exist, and we feel that we exist. But since all existence is really His, we only really have it if we know what it is and whose it is. Jesus said this repeatedly, I think.
--------------------
"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 TomOfTarsus:
I can't imagine my salvation depending on my righteousness.
There it is. That's the difference between PSA and CV.
I think Jesus said that it does depend on your righteousness.
quote:
Matthew 5:20 “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of the heavens.”
Matthew 13:49 "At the completion of the age angels will go forth and separate the wicked from out of the midst of the righteous."
Matthew 7.21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22“Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
As did the Old Testament:
quote:
Psalm 1:5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment,
Nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
6 For the LORD knows the way of the righteous,
But the way of the ungodly shall perish.
So the point is that it is critical to become a righteous person. If you fail then you won't be as happy as if you succeed - because sin leads to enslavement and suffering.
And it's not that hard. Even the thief on the cross could do it.
It is also, as Jesus points out, essential to understand that the righteousness is not really ours, nor is the effort, because without Him we can do nothing.
--------------------
"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:
Johnny, I'm not sure what you are not seeing here. It completely fits my theory.
Sure the thief did all those bad things. But he reformed. He changed. What's wrong with that? Once you change, your past sins are of no consequence in God's eyes. At least that's the way I see it.
Perhaps you need to take the sunglasses off then?
The description of the thief you give also fits a PSA description. My point is that he had no time (in this life) to 'do' anything to demonstrate that repentance. Your claims about him 'carrying on' in heaven is just an example of reading back your view point into the argument. I'm sure I do the same sometimes. You have no evidence, biblical or otherwise, that our 'good deeds' in the afterlife can save us.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I think Jesus said that it does depend on your righteousness.
<snip>
So the point is that it is critical to become a righteous person. If you fail then you won't be as happy as if you succeed - because sin leads to enslavement and suffering.
And it's not that hard. Even the thief on the cross could do it.
It is also, as Jesus points out, essential to understand that the righteousness is not really ours, nor is the effort, because without Him we can do nothing.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) We are going round in circles Freddy. All PSAers would completely agree with you. If Christ imputes his righteousness to me then it is my righteousness. Therefore a PSAer is quite happy to agree with all your biblical quotes. On this matter CV and PSA are agreed. Christ came to make us righteous people. It is the grounds for that righteousness that is being debated.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
OK Freddy, I know we've had this discussion before, but I don't see that the "saved as a consequence of obedience to Jesus teaching (assisted by the grace of God)" (which, correct me if I'm wrong, is pretty much the view you hold) is, of necessity, any more a part of CV than of PSA. Equally, my position (saved by grace alone, but for a life of good works, pace Ephesians 2:8-10) is as valid under CV as it is under PSA.
Now, I know that this is a hot topic for you, and I respect and understand your position on it, but I have to say that anything that depends on my righteousness, with or without God's grace, is just bad news for me, at any rate, because, if that's true, then I'm toast! I screw up at least as often as I get things right, sometimes in major ways. I'm sort of hoping that that doesn't count in the great scheme of things.
I take what you say about the primacy of motivation, but even so, if my salvation depends on my ability to be faithful to my Lord, I think I'm in dire straits ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) .
Having said that, I accept that your position is compatible with CV in a way which it is not compatible with PSA.
[ 19. July 2007, 09:22: 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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The description of the thief you give also fits a PSA description.
Isn't the PSA understanding that the thief's confession of faith saved him, rendering his actual quality moot? That's pretty different from my understanding that Jesus saw his actual quality.
--------------------
"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 Johnny S:
We are going round in circles Freddy. All PSAers would completely agree with you. If Christ imputes his righteousness to me then it is my righteousness. Therefore a PSAer is quite happy to agree with all your biblical quotes. On this matter CV and PSA are agreed. Christ came to make us righteous people. It is the grounds for that righteousness that is being debated.
Not according to the statements I have been quoting. They say that our righteousness is emphatically not the issue.
quote:
14. We affirm that, while all believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and are in the process of being made holy and conformed to the image of Christ, those consequences of justification are not its ground. God declares us just, remits our sins, and adopts us as his children, by his grace alone, and through faith alone, because of Christ alone, while we are still sinners (Rom. 4:5).
We deny that believers must be inherently righteous by virtue of their cooperation with God’s life-transforming grace before God will declare them justified in Christ. We are justified while we are still sinners.
If we are justified while we are still sinners, then righteousness is not the grounds of our justification. Yet Jesus said otherwise.
--------------------
"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 Jolly Jape:
OK Freddy, I know we've had this discussion before, but I don't see that the "saved as a consequence of obedience to Jesus teaching (assisted by the grace of God)" (which, correct me if I'm wrong, is pretty much the view you hold) is, of necessity, any more a part of CV than of PSA. Equally, my position (saved by grace alone, but for a life of good works, pace Ephesians 2:8-10) is as valid under CV as it is under PSA.
It's true that I may not have a complete grasp of the ins and outs of what is called CV, so I may just be substituting the New Church view and calling it CV. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) But I am seeing an enormous and crucial difference between CV and PSA on this.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Now, I know that this is a hot topic for you, and I respect and understand your position on it, but I have to say that anything that depends on my righteousness, with or without God's grace, is just bad news for me, at any rate, because, if that's true, then I'm toast! I screw up at least as often as I get things right, sometimes in major ways. I'm sort of hoping that that doesn't count in the great scheme of things.
Isn't this the meat of the issue? Isn't the question of whether or not we are toast fairly crucial?
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Having said that, I accept that your position is compatible with CV in a way which it is not compatible with PSA.
Thank you for saying that. I am really just arguing that PSA and CV are incompatible.
OK, maybe I'm also arguing that PSA does not take sin seriously.
--------------------
"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:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The description of the thief you give also fits a PSA description.
Isn't the PSA understanding that the thief's confession of faith saved him, rendering his actual quality moot? That's pretty different from my understanding that Jesus saw his actual quality.
I'm not sure this is going anywhere. I know your understanding is different. I'm talking about what actually happens in Luke 23, and both CV and PSA fit with the text.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Not according to the statements I have been quoting. They say that our righteousness is emphatically not the issue.
quote:
14. We affirm that, while all believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and are in the process of being made holy and conformed to the image of Christ, those consequences of justification are not its ground. God declares us just, remits our sins, and adopts us as his children, by his grace alone, and through faith alone, because of Christ alone, while we are still sinners (Rom. 4:5).
We deny that believers must be inherently righteous by virtue of their cooperation with God’s life-transforming grace before God will declare them justified in Christ. We are justified while we are still sinners.
If we are justified while we are still sinners, then righteousness is not the grounds of our justification. Yet Jesus said otherwise.
Freddy, are you deliberately misunderstanding this? I thought Numpty and others had made this very clear. The statement you quote distances itself (as would I) from any sense that we are justified because of our inherent righteousness. However, (again I say ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif) ) if Christ's righteousness is imputed to me then it becomes my righteousness. Therefore all the quotes about our righteousness having to exceed the Pharisees is fulfilled because my righteousness is perfect, in Christ. I'm not asking you to agree with me, just to see what PSA is actually saying.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm talking about what actually happens in Luke 23, and both CV and PSA fit with the text.
Yes, they both fit with the text. That's the point I was making. My CV interpretation is perfectly legitimate, I think.
You brought it up as an illustration of how righteousness could not possibly be the grounds of our salvation. It is often referred to this way, to illustrate the PSA view of salvation by faith alone.
--------------------
"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 Johnny S:
However, (again I say ) if Christ's righteousness is imputed to me then it becomes my righteousness. Therefore all the quotes about our righteousness having to exceed the Pharisees is fulfilled because my righteousness is perfect, in Christ. I'm not asking you to agree with me, just to see what PSA is actually saying.
So you're not worried that you might not be righteous enough to enter heaven? What if you fail to obey the Ten Commandments?
--------------------
"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:
Yes, they both fit with the text. That's the point I was making. My CV interpretation is perfectly legitimate, I think.
You brought it up as an illustration of how righteousness could not possibly be the grounds of our salvation. It is often referred to this way, to illustrate the PSA view of salvation by faith alone.
Right, I see what you mean now. I would argue that PSA makes much better sense of the thief on the cross than CV but would not want to make it a proof text.
I thought you were trying to demonstrate that it couldn't fit with PSA. My mistake.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
And just when I was starting to understand you!
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So you're not worried that you might not be righteous enough to enter heaven? What if you fail to obey the Ten Commandments?
Freddy, are you serious? Or are you playing some kind of game?
Have you Read Romans 3?
Let's try verse 20 for a start:
"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin."
As JJ has been trying to tell you - this has nothing to do with PSA vs. CV but everything to do with, IMHO, your semi-pelagian view of salvation.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
And just when I was starting to understand you!
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So you're not worried that you might not be righteous enough to enter heaven? What if you fail to obey the Ten Commandments?
Freddy, are you serious? Or are you playing some kind of game?
Have you Read Romans 3?
Let's try verse 20 for a start:
"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin."
And yet Jesus clearly says that this is what we need to do to enter heaven. Or doesn't He?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
As JJ has been trying to tell you - this has nothing to do with PSA vs. CV but everything to do with, IMHO, your semi-pelagian view of salvation.
Are you saying that CV does not mean that we need to overcome sin in our life, with Christ's help, in order to be saved? I don't see this as semi-pelagian.
--------------------
"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
On the contrary, one must be 'saved' in order to have any hope of overcoming sin. We are saved from our sins.
But that's just basic evangelical theology; and Johnny S is right, it's got nothing specifically to do the CV as a distinctive model of the atonement. It's a matter of much wider difference between evangelical and swedenborgian soteriology.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Johnny S is right, it's got nothing specifically to do the CV as a distinctive model of the atonement. It's a matter of much wider difference between evangelical and swedenborgian soteriology.
Are you saying that what I've been calling CV is nothing more than Swedenborgianism?
How do you know? Whose definition of CV are we working from?
Surprisingly, for a thread of this length, no one has come up with a very complete definition of Christus victor. Or else I missed it.
We know that the term itself was coined by Gustav Aulen in the 1930's:
quote:
Aulén argues that theologians have misunderstood the view of the early Church Fathers in seeing their view of the Atonement in terms of a Ransom Theory arguing that a proper understanding of their view should focus less on the payment of ransom to the devil, and more of the liberation of humanity from the bondage of sin, death, and the devil. As the term Christus Victor (Christ the Victor) indicates, the idea of “ransom” should not be seen in terms (as Anselm did) of a business transaction, but more in the terms of a rescue or liberation of humanity from the slavery of sin.
It's a view that in the past has been predominently Orthodox:
quote:
While largely held only by Eastern Orthodox Christians for much of the last one thousand years, the Christus Victor theory is becoming increasingly popular with both Evangelicals because of its connection to the Early Church Fathers, and with Liberal Christians and Peace Churches such as the Mennonites because of its subversive nature, seeing the death of Jesus as an exposure of the cruelty and evil present in the worldly powers that rejected and killed him, and the resurrection as a triumph over these powers. As Marcus Borg writes,
“ for [the Christus Victor] view, the domination system, understood as something much larger than the Roman governor and the temple aristocracy, is responsible for the death of Jesus... The domination system killed Jesus and thereby disclosed its moral bankruptcy and ultimate defeat."
I like all of that, but it doesn't say much about CV's implications for individual salvation.
Numps, JJ, or Johnny, do you have more specific sources that would contradict what I have been saying above?
[ 19. July 2007, 23:37: 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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Numps, JJ, or Johnny, do you have more specific sources that would contradict what I have been saying above?
Apologies if I sound like a stuck record - no specific sources but, if that is an accurate summary of CV, I think it highlights both its strengths and its weaknesses (lacking in personal responsiblity ... a focus on the 'system' rather than the 'person').
Which is why I prefer both PSA and CV.
Right, I'm off on holiday tomorrow for a fortnight... rain, rain, and then more rain.
Freddy, promise that you'll keep this thread going and you won't let those 'Wycliffe Hall' guys get too far in front.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Are you saying that what I've been calling CV is nothing more than Swedenborgianism?
Freddy,
An Atonement theory in itself does not explain how salvation works on our side. It explains what God needed to do to make salvation available. What does sound rather "Swedenborgian" about your view is the idea that salvation is about knowledge that sets us free leading to right actions/life on our part. (I've already expressed some of my problems with this view). But that is a theory of salvation not atonement.
One could argue that since Aulen was Lutheran and based a good deal of CV on Luther, that he (and Luther) would have taken a more "Lutheran" understanding of salvation to go along with CV. Also I imagine that the early church would have had some problems with it as well as it does sound rather Pelagian.
Specifically your understanding of CV, (separated from your view of salvation) seems more or less right on to me. But since the two do get mixed up here pretty rapidly, perhaps that is leading to confusion.
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Freddy, promise that you'll keep this thread going and you won't let those 'Wycliffe Hall' guys get too far in front.
Absolutely. We can't have that. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Hope you enjoy the two weeks! I'm sure you'll wonder the whole time how it all turned out.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
An Atonement theory in itself does not explain how salvation works on our side. It explains what God needed to do to make salvation available.
I guess that you and Johnny are probably right about this. None of the CV sources I have looked at really go into it.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Specifically your understanding of CV, (separated from your view of salvation) seems more or less right on to me. But since the two do get mixed up here pretty rapidly, perhaps that is leading to confusion.
Yes, they do. Certainly in the New Church they are wrapped up as one thing - thus leading to my conflating the two.
It does seem to me that CV implies what I have said about salvation. But maybe not. So I guess I'll drop that.
On the other hand, I am quite certain that PSA has the implications that I have said it does. It really is directly about individual salvation. I doubt anyone disagrees with that.
--------------------
"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
quote:
On the other hand, I am quite certain that PSA has the implications that I have said it does. It really is directly about individual salvation. I doubt anyone disagrees with that.
Both PSA and CV are about individual/personal salvation, both with a different understanding of the problem and solution. Both also in that have a corporate sense too, in that it is not just "for me" but also "for humankind". What I think CV adds to this is the idea that Christ also died and rose to redeem our systems (religion, power, wrath, law, etc). This of course has a personal aspect as well since the domination of systems effect individuals too.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Are you saying that what I've been calling CV is nothing more than Swedenborgianism?
Freddy,
An Atonement theory in itself does not explain how salvation works on our side. It explains what God needed to do to make salvation available.
So for 30 years I have been under the illusion that I knew the answer to the Question "Men and brethren, what must we do to be saved?"
But now I find that the atonement has nothing to do with 'my side' of the equation? sounds suspicious.
There is the theory and the practice don't you think?
One must triangulate ones experience and devotional life with ones perception of scripture with the church in the sense of what over the centuries, the church thinkers have taught and thought. It is obvious that they haven't always agreed.
In favour of a PSA reading I think you can add the apostle John's opinion to Paul's and the Hebrews writer's because he also refers to Christ's 'propitiatory' sacrifice. and clearly intends to convey the message that Christ took the punishment that we sinners deserved.(see 1 Jn 2,3)
[ 21. July 2007, 03:35: Message edited by: Jamat ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
So for 30 years I have been under the illusion that I knew the answer to the Question "Men and brethren, what must we do to be saved?"
But now I find that the atonement has nothing to do with 'my side' of the equation? sounds suspicious.
Jamat, think of it like this: one does not need to understand how a phone works (satellites, fiber optic networks, etc) in order to talk on the phone. Understanding our side of "what we must do to be saved" is like knowing how to pick up and dial the phone. Atonement is what God did to make that possible, just like the phone company has to do a lot to make that simple phone call possible. If all that was not there (those satalites and fiber optics etc) it would not work, and in the same way "what we must do to be saved" only works because of the work of God in the atonement. So of course the two are connected. However one does not need to comprehend fiber optics to make a call, nor does one need to have a developed atonement doctrine before they can "call upon the name of the Lord" to be saved.
quote:
In favour of a PSA reading I think you can add the apostle John's opinion to Paul's and the Hebrews writer's because he also refers to Christ's 'propiti atory' sacrifice. and clearly intends to convey the message that Christ took the punishment that we sinners deserved.(see 1 Jn 2,3)
i disagree. 1 Jn 2 simply says "He is the hilasterion for our sins". We have discussed this word earlier. Even if we go with an understanding of the word in the sense of "turning asside wrath" (which is debatable to say the least) there is nothing in there to indicate how wrath is turned aside. Assuming that this is through "Christ taking the punishment that we sinners deserved" is reading an understanding into that text that is simply out of sync with how Jews understood their temple sacrificial system, and with the book of Hebrews too.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
Jamat,
Just to be sure we are not talking past one another, could you clarify why "Christ taking the punishment that we sinners deserved" would propitiate God?
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
I would like to mix things up a bit by talking about the idea of justice as it progresses from the OT to the NT and in doing so get at some themes of PSA and CV as they relate to justice.
In the OT justice is primarily focused on Israel who is oppressed under pagan captivity calling out for justice. We can see this is the Psalms which speak of being "saved" from those who pursue and attack David, to the Prophets who speak of the poor being lifted up from under their burden. Jesus quotes several of these prophesies that speak of good news to the poor, and it is from this understandable that the Jews at the time expected the Messiah to be one who would destroy the evil pagans and restore Israel to its former glory.
But the message of the NT and Jesus instead says that evil is not just "them" over there, it is "us". We are all sinners, and if we only seek to destroy the bad guys to bring about justice, we will find ourselves at the end of that sword. To put this in the language of Paul, we have all sinned, we are all guilty, and we are all subject to wrath. So the good news of wrath - that the bad guys are gonna get it - is really bad news because we are all guilty of oppressing and hurting others.
At the same time though we are also victims of sin. Both sin done to us by others, and also by our own sins that imprison us in hurtful self -destructive behavior. So while we need to be saved from wrath, that can't be all. There needs to be a different way for justice to come about, not by destroying our enemies (which will just come back to get us since we are all guilty of hurting others), but of a way to lift ourselves out of the bondage of hurting, and to stop the cycle of blame and revenge. So here we go from the idea of retributive justice (and also of the idea of acquital from retributive justice) to the idea of restorative justice, of a justice focused on setting things right, mending what was broken. Because while we now see in the light of the NT that we are the oppressor, we are at the same time the victim too. The victim of others hurtfulness, but also the victim of our own hurtfulness, and merely not getting punished does not actually take us out of that bondage to hurt we are stuck in. It does not bring about justice in us to simply get clemency. We need to go beyond a punitive model to a restorative model that heals what has been broken in us and our world, one that redeems and makes all things new, that gives us new life. Going from the way of and eye for an eye to the way of overcoming evil with good through love of enemies and unmerited grace that God demonstrates by loving us first while we were his enemies because of our hurtfulness. That is the good news to the poor.
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Jamat,
Just to be sure we are not talking past one another, could you clarify why "Christ taking the punishment that we sinners deserved" would propitiate God?
Because he said it would. Think of Cain and Abel.Why did one sacrifice do it and one not? It was the blood. The blood equals the life. A life had to be takenfor sin to be forgiven and relationship restored. We are just lucky Christ became the 'mercy seat' or 'covering' or we would still bear the consequences of our sinfulness.
Think also of Noah. 'God smelled the soohing aroma'? Same deal. God is God and he demands that sin be dealt with this way and only so. Think of the original couple. God clothed them with skins so sacrifice can be inferred here too. Hebrews..'Without the shedding of blood is no forgiveness.' The big discussion earlier about whether the blood implied a penal substitution notwithstanding, I believe that the sacrifice of a life, animal or son of God is a venting of judgement. It shows how seriously God takes sin. Who are we to question or say it is barbaric because it doesn't suit our sensibilities?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
I think you need to pick one of two tacts:
A) say that God requires a sacrifice for what ever reason, and who or we to question.
or
B) offer an understanding of why a sacrifice might be required.
What you seem to be doing is (B) saying that it has a certain role ("venting judgment" as you say), but then this explanation is put in the "God works in mysterious ways" category (A).
The problem with this of course is that the particular understanding of the sacrifices you are offering is not one that is clearly taught in Scripture (I would argue that it is in fact contrary to what most Biblical scholars including conservative ones would say the role of sacrifice was). If you just wanted to go with explanation (A) and say "God must know," I could agree with you, but when you attach a certain interpretation onto that (B), I think one does need to be able to at least make a Biblical argument to justify that interpretation. In other words, I do not question the sacrifices, I question your understanding of them. Otherwise, if we do not examine the solidness of our our particular exegesis of Scripture and simply pull the "God says so" trump card, we run the risk of imposing our own cultural assumptions onto our reading of the Bible.
Anyway, that's why people need to be able to justify their particular interpretations. I was really only asking you to clarify what that interpretation was at all, which I am still guessing from your term "venting judgment" has to to with the idea of appeasement of anger/revenge through killing. But I can only guess that's what you mean from the context. My understanding is you are saying that this sounds bad to us, and indeed sounds barbaric and unjust, but that God is beyond question so we should accept that. Is that correct?
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:
How would you describe CV to someone else (say, a non-Christian, or a Christian who only knew PSA)?
<tiptoes in quietly, whispers>
It's all explained in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, though one should probably read the whole searies. OliviaG
<tiptoes out>
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
<tiptoes in quietly, whispers>
It's all explained in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, though one should probably read the whole searies. OliviaG
<tiptoes out>
I think that's right...
--------------------
"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
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Except for the spelling of "series". OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Shark
the particular understanding of the sacrifices you are offering is not one that is clearly taught in Scripture (I would argue that it is in fact contrary to what most Biblical scholars.
Who precisely are 'most Bible scholars? Would the writer to the Hebrews agree with them?
Heb 9:15 "He is the mediator of a new covenantin order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of transgressions....those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance."
This says to me:
His death is the mechanism of my redemption
It redeems because it satisfies God's anger against transgressions.
What does it say to you?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Who precisely are 'most Bible scholars?
One that comes to mind is Leon Morris. Also John Goldingay.
quote:
Would the writer to the Hebrews agree with them?
I think he would, yes.
Heb 9:15 "He is the mediator of a new covenant in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of transgressions....those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance."
My version reads "For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant".
The term "ransom" is clearly one that evokes Christus Victor, and the idea of being ransomed out of slavery which was the central defining narrative of the Jewish people.
quote:
This says to me:
His death is the mechanism of my redemption
That I would agree.
quote:
It redeems because it satisfies God's anger against transgressions.
This I find unbiblical, and not at all what Hebrews says. You quoted Hebrews earlier saying that "without blood there is no forgiveness" (9:22) but this is not the full sentence/verse. The full sentence/verse is
"In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness"
You can see from this that the purpose of the blood is not to appease, but to "cleanse". This is the writers point throughout this entire section. This idea of cleansing and sanctification here reflects the entire Hebrew concept of holiness and "cleanliness". So here we have the idea of expiation (cleansing, sanctifying). Christ's blood sanctifies us, cleanses us from sin. This is as you say not a pleasant idea to us today, but it is the idea of the sacrifices. Those sacrifices make God propitiated (turning aside wrath as Paul says in Romans) because when we are cleansed there is no reason for wrath because wrath is the result of our sin and so if the sin is removed so is wrath. However this has nothing to do with God needing to be appeased or placated in order to love us because God is the one who provides the sacrifice. It is also not about God needing the satisfy the demands of justice through violence carried out on the innocent or himself (which would be profoundly unjust), but a new kind of justice that breaks the cycle of an eye for an eye with the way of love of enemies that God demonstrated when he allowed himself to be wronged for us, bearing all of our pain, guilt, hurt, despair, helplessness, and shame on the cross and rising victorious in order to set us free from all that would separate us from him.
That's what I see there. Not the fulfillment of justice, but the scandal of how despite the terrible injustice of the cross that God worked justice through that, in this humiliation God's glory is revealed, in this defeat is victory, in this darkness is the light of the crucified one.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
