Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
Certainly, in Christian iconography, the Lamb of God has become a sacrifice for sin. But were the real lambs of Passover ever intended as such by the Jewish people?

---

The New Testament analogy is not only to the Passover lamb but also to the lambs or goats at Yom Kippur - one of which was sacrificed, and one released, the "scapegoat" which bore the sins of the people into the wilderness, literally the "Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world".

Jesus is explicitly likened to the lambs in the Scriptures - to the Passover lamb by impliction in Luke and explictly in 1 Corinthians 5, to the scapegoat by John the Baptist in John 1, to the lamb that is sacrificed for sin in 1 Peter.

And I have no idea which one, if any, the Lamb on the throne in the Revelation is, the Atonement lamb or the Passover lamb.

"Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!"

Christus Victor

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
And I have no idea which one, if any, the Lamb on the throne in the Revelation is, the Atonement lamb or the Passover lamb.

---

Whatever lamb it was one that was slain, and 'with your blood purchased men for God from every tribe...' PSA

I know that it is my background that probably needs to be deconstructed ... I've just finished watching 'The Last King of Scotland' about Idi Amin. The ending was pretty gruesome but the thing that hit me hardest was the fact on the screen right at the end - he died in exile in Saudi Arabia in 2003. Do we really believe that God won't judged him for that?

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mirrizin:
Of course God judges.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mirrizin:
I don't think that kind of evil is just personal. It runs through the entire society...

Best to just end it.

---

Absolutely ... that would be an atonement model that dealt with all the sins of the entire society in one go then ...

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny S:
But how? If it is the same for everyone then that is hardly fair.

---

quote:

---

Absolutely ... that would be an atonement model that dealt with all the sins of the entire society in one go then ...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mirrizin:
In this life, you get what you give. If we're all of one body, then a sin against one person is a sin against all. It is the same for everyone. We are all loved equally, whether we want it or not.

---

What colour is the sky in your world? As I look out my window I don't recognise the world you describe.

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
He then takes on the ugliest powers of sin - rejection, shame, injustice, suffering, torture, murder, alienation from God, and death. He counters these evils not by repaying evil with evil, but by facing them with love and forgiveness, forgiving the evildoers even as they nail Him up. He lets evil do its worst to Him, even to the point of letting it kill Him. But because He is greater than they are, He wins.

---

quote:

---

John 12:24 Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 10:39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

Matthew 16:25 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.

Mark 8:35 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it.

Luke 9:24 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it.

Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

John 12:25 He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

Luke 17:33 Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.

Revelation 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.

---

quote:

---

Luke 12:23 Life is more than food, and the body is more than clothing.

John 6:27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

Matthew 6:19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.

Luke 12:21 “So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.”

Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”

---

quote:

---

Matthew 7:14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Matthew 19:29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.

John 6:27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”

John 16:33 These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Esmeralda:
I think you've hit on something really important, Freddy. One of the weaknesses of PSA is that it doesn't connect very well to Jesus' life and ministry - proponents have a way of talking as if all he came for was to die - and nor does it have implications for how we live our lives, except that we are to live them in gratitude for his sacrifice.

---

I don't think that's fair Esmeralda. PSA is a model that attempts to explain the death of Jesus. It appears that you are complaining that a model of the death of Jesus focusses too much on the death of Jesus

However, if you are saying that as a model it dominates some folk's theology to the exclusion of everything else then that is another matter.

'...except ... in gratitude of his sacrifice' could you explain that further? I find it an extremely powerful motivation and don't understand why so many dismiss it so lightly?

John.

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
'...except ... in gratitude of his sacrifice' could you explain that further? I find it an extremely powerful motivation and don't understand why so many dismiss it so lightly?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Maybe it was several years of sitting through dry-as-dust sermons where we were admonished how we 'should/ought feel grateful for what Christ did for us'.

If this does 'it' for you Johnny, then I'm very happy, but all it ever produced for me was guilt upon guilt.

My wife, until recently, whenever I would say (sincerely) something like, 'you deserve a break darling', would reply almost instinctively, 'no, I deserve Hell'. It's taken a while to get such negativity out of our experience of God.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
Christus Victor, as with PSA - fine, but don't take it as the only valid description.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Johnny,

I've been thinking about this question of 'what motivates us?'.

I think it has to involve a transformation of the 'will', that centre of all human desire and motivation. Without some sort of transformation of our desires then the Christian life would be impossible.

'Will' is so much more than thoughts and ideas, hence the need for an engagement of more than just our rational senses.

PSA, as it's been utilised around me, makes Christ's sacrifice into a 'logical system' which makes rational sense but fails to 'warm my heart'. In the presence of this cold heartedness, trying to whip up gratitude is like chastising a deceased equine!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Collins:
CV works like a 'hero story' which has me cheering for the good guys and booing the bad guys. Seeing how God outwits evil and turns it in on itself is impressive and I'm left desiring to be part of this drama.

PSA is like saying, 'Boy and Girl on a new ship, just starting to get it together, ship hits an iceberg, boy dies and girl survives - now doesn't that make you feel sad?', CV is like watching 'Titanic' and finding yourself weeping when Di Caprio died (which I did - I'm quite in touch with my feminine side ).

---

You had me there ... right until the end! Not the blubbing but the Di Caprio. I have hated him ever since he ruined 'The Beach' by trying to play a Brit. I've never forgiven him for that ... is that because he hasn't shown any repentance or ...

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Johnny,

I've been thinking about this question of 'what motivates us?'.

---

Although not directly linked to PSA another major aspect of motivation is the return of Christ.

Of course this is a relational metaphor. Just as I don't want my wife to find me with another woman when she comes home (because I love her ) so I want Jesus to find me as faithful as possible when he comes back.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Interesting you see it like this, because my view is that Jesus is always present.

---

Good point. However, his present presence ( ) is not very personal (or doesn't feel it to me). John 14-17 describes the work of the Spirit being 'another Jesus' to his disciples. He is with us all the time. I just long for the day when 'the veil is taken away' and we see him as he is.

In fact the second coming can only work as a motivation to stop sinning if I believe that he is with me now - otherwise there is no shared 'history'. Nevertheless it brings a personal 'face to face' element that brings focus to my life.

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I just long for the day when 'the veil is taken away' and we see him as he is.

---

Amen! Maranatha!

--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Jamat, as an aside, the principle reason behind my rejection of PSA is that I believe it makes God less than He is, by implying that there are external constraints upon who he may and may not forgive and under what circumstances. This seems to me not merely to be without Biblical support, but to be wholly against the manifest thrust of revelation. The point I made about violence is not my primary concern, but is telling supporting evidence.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Jamat, as an aside, the principle reason behind my rejection of PSA is that I believe it makes God less than He is, by implying that there are external constraints upon who he may and may not forgive and under what circumstances. This seems to me not merely to be without Biblical support, but to be wholly against the manifest thrust of revelation. The point I made about violence is not my primary concern, but is telling supporting evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Esmerelda:One of the weaknesses of PSA is that it doesn't connect very well to Jesus' life and ministry - proponents have a way of talking as if all he came for was to die - and nor does it have implications for how we live our lives, except that we are to live them in gratitude for his sacrifice. It leads to a negative view of discipleship as mainly consisting of avoiding doing naughty things.

CV OTOH includes the dimension of the defeat of the powers which rule this earth, and invites us to join Jesus in continuing to defeat the powers by our non-violent resistance. We too are to live a cross-shaped life which will lead us into conflict with the 'domination system', and may ultimately lead to our death at their hands as well. So it leads to positive discipleship, working for peace and justice but not by the sword.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Collins:I've been thinking about this question of 'what motivates us?'.

I think it has to involve a transformation of the 'will', that centre of all human desire and motivation. Without some sort of transformation of our desires then the Christian life would be impossible.

'Will' is so much more than thoughts and ideas, hence the need for an engagement of more than just our rational senses.

PSA, as it's been utilised around me, makes Christ's sacrifice into a 'logical system' which makes rational sense but fails to 'warm my heart'. In the presence of this cold heartedness, trying to whip up gratitude is like chastising a deceased equine!

---

The transformation of the will and of our desires you describe sounds very reminiscent of the kind of thing Jonathan Edwards and John Piper describe. Hardly opponents of PSA either!

I think one of the great things about PSA, properly understood, is that it's all about the love of God, and is the ultimate expression of that love. I don't see how Father and Son, out of love for one another, purposing in eternity past to willingly sacrifice the Son's life out of love for the Father and for humanity so that sin may be dealt with and also forgiveness offered, so that we may be brought into that communion of love that exists between Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is cold-hearted, a mere logical system.

It seems to me that the problem is not with PSA itself, but that PSA is often badly taught. This needn't be the case, and I think last year's Contagious is a good example of where the Cross, including PSA, was taught well. The main talks are available to download, and if anyone's interested in hearing the kind of way the Cross and PSA are taught by conservative evangelicals, I'd thoroughly recommend them. PSA needn't and shouldn't exclude other aspects of the atonement, nor be just a cold, logical system - it's all about the love of God being poured out.

Posted                       

quote:

---

In reply, the constraints are what he has set in place himself. The fundamental issue is the nature of his holiness and the basis on which we fallen beings can have access to his love. This is why the issue of the blood is so vital; and why sin is less drastic if we don't need the blood atonement to expunge it. What, incidentally do you do with the scriptures I referred to above, namely Romans 3:25, 1 Pet 1:19 and Heb 9:14. In each case a different NT writer assumes blood atonement as a prerequisite for forgiveness and consequent relationship with God.

---

quote:

---

God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

I don't think most people who hold to PSA see God as having external constraints on who he may and may not forgive (I certainly don't). The only "constraint" is God's own sense of justice; his own holy and righteous character means that he "has to" to deal with sin, choosing self-sacrifice rather than "just forgiving".

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

I think one of the great things about PSA, properly understood, is that it's all about the love of God, and is the ultimate expression of that love. I don't see how Father and Son, out of love for one another, purposing in eternity past to willingly sacrifice the Son's life out of love for the Father and for humanity so that sin may be dealt with and also forgiveness offered, so that we may be brought into that communion of love that exists between Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is cold-hearted, a mere logical system.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
... You can't put forgiveness up against self-sacrifice. Forgiveness is self-sacrifice. So I think the cross does speak, subjectively, into forgiveness - it is God saying "if you forgive, you will get crucified, but the good news is that, after you are, I will raise you to life again".

...In objective terms, it's not about forgiveness, but about breaking the power of sin to hold us in bondage to death, thus allowing already forgiven people to inherit eternal life, and, on a cosmic scale, the beginnings, at the resurrection, of a new heaven and a new earth, which will be fully realised at the eschaton.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

It seems to me that the problem is not with PSA itself, but that PSA is often badly taught.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
It occured to me that 'he took our place' makes sense in both theories.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally Posted by the Revolutionist:
It seems to me that the problem is not with PSA itself, but that PSA is often badly taught.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mirrizin:

quote:

---

Originally Posted by the Revolutionist:
It seems to me that the problem is not with PSA itself, but that PSA is often badly taught.

---

You could say that for many of the problems in religion (and other circles).

In Aikido, there's a common refrain that "it isn't that Aikido doesn't work, it's that your Aikido doesn't work."

The obvious follow up to this is that if it's so hard to keep people honest and to stay true within the system, doesn't that mean somebody needs to do something to change the system?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Revolutionist:
If by the system, you mean the system of Christian beliefs, then I don't agree with that. Just because we're not very good at putting something into practice doesn't make it untrue.

But if by the system you mean the way that we "do" church and theology and teaching and discipleship and so on, our surrounding practices, then yes, I'd agree that we need to change those to try and make us better able to live and teach Christianity properly.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

His holiness is a constraint upon accepting sinners into relationship with Him. I think that you would have a hard time justifying such claims from scripture. On the contrary, Jesus, God incarnate, had no problem at all in eating and drinking with sinners.

---

quote:

---

The second point is the necessity of blood sacrifice. My view is absolutely that in order to achieve the Atonement (which I consider a cosmic, as well as a personal, event) it was necessary for the forces of evil to be conquered, so to speak, and that in order to acheive that, it was necessary for Jesus to die "as a sheep who before its shearers was dumb". So I don't have a problem with references to "blood sacrifice" as such. The question is not "was it necessary for Jesus to die", but, "were my sins being punished by God in the person of Jesus when He died on the cross". The first I would wholeheartedly assent to, the second I reject as sub-Biblical, to use Tom Wright's phrase.

---

quote:

---

Interestingly, the verse you quote from Romans is, in my view, a key scripture, because, quoted in context with v 25 it describes quite well what is happening on the cross with regards to God's justice. If I might quote the verses in the NIV translation:

quote:

---

God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus

---

Here, Paul is quite clearly saying that, though we might deserve punishment, and God would be quite justified in punishing it at any time, He wants to demonstrate clearly to us that His justice does not, in fact, mean that sin has to be punished - rather that there is a better way, the way of Christ, in which, by apparently being defeated on the cross, Jesus does actually conquer sin, and, in the resurrection, initiates a new creation where His definition of justice, the unmaking of sin and all its effects, whether on the victim, the perpetrator or the whole of creation, will finally be brought to fulness. It's clear that Paul was here addressing the very point that PSA proponents say is a strength of their model, that it reconcies love with justice. Paul is saying, no, the cross demonstrates how different God's idea of justice is to ours.

---

quote:

---

Now, why you feel that the the absense of a punitive dimension towards sin diminishes the seriousness of sin, I'm not sure. To me, it just makes the righteousness of the sin-forgiver that much greater, because it is so unlike us. When we are wronged, we want vindication. When He is wronged, He forgives. Does that not make Him all the more transcendent.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

The issue here then seems to be your definition of justice. Justice to me is by definition retributive. A wrong suffered must be paid for,atoned for. Only after retribution is restoration possible. in The NAS version the word propitiation is used. The word carries the import of covering. It was associated with the value of sacrifice with blood as shielding the sacrificer. from consequence by attributing that punishment to the sacrifice animal. Christ, Paul is clearly implying, volutarily became our sacrifice animal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
The reason the good news is so good is that God chose to punish himself, in the person of Christ, in order to reach us.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
We bollocks that up all over the place in our current system of criminal "justice", where our focus on punishment results in people coming out of prison more dangerous and broken then they were when they went in.

The idea that God punishing himself instead of us would be the ultimate "good news" to me shortchanges God. The good news of God, to me, is that God (in Christ) stands outside our systems of retributive punishment and beckons us towards another way of doing things.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Collins:
however this doesn't stop me imaging a 'better' justice system ...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

The whole of scripure teaches that God wants to reach man but is constrained by his own nature from doing so easily. He dwells in unapproachable light,..no man has seen his face. Remember Moses' veil and the whole issue of how Israel was nearly destroyed by their idolatry which provoked God's anger. God needed to clothe Adam and Eve with skins. This implies blood sacrifice in Genesis. Cain's offering was not acceptable to God since there was no blood sacrifice as there was with Abel's. The reason the good news is so good is that God chose to punish himself, in the person of Christ, in order to reach us.

---

quote:

---

But you need to explain why the writers of scripture depict God as seeing it (blood sacrifice) as essential if your POV is to hold up. I'm unfamiliar with Wright but the issue would seem to be, as you pose the question, why precisely DID Christ have to die? Christ could more economically and less tragically have demonstrated his victory if the shedding of blood was not needed to cover sin.

---

quote:

---

The issue here then seems to be your definition of justice. Justice to me is by definition retributive. A wrong suffered must be paid for,atoned for. Only after retribution is restoration possible.

---

quote:

---

The issue is the basis of the forgiveness. Forgiveness is only possible because of the fact that Christ's blood covers sin. Sin by definition is less serious if a life need not be sacrificed to expunge it. I agree with the greatness of the 'sin forgiver'.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Since CV 'lives' in the world which we are aiming for, it doesn't suffer this potential compromise - and can, actually, pull us into the new system. I guess, following this logic, the 'weakness' of CV might be that it is 'alien' to our current understandings and uses thought concepts/paradigms which are so different as to make it 'hard' to imagine.

Certainly understanding that the 'first will be last and the last will be first' and 'one must loose to win' etc... goes against our 'modus normalis', but then I would say that acquiring this 'different' (=redeemed) mindset is the 'work' of Christianity and so I would rather stick with a CV model than a potentially compromisable PSA one.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Since CV 'lives' in the world which we are aiming for, it doesn't suffer this potential compromise - and can, actually, pull us into the new system. I guess, following this logic, the 'weakness' of CV might be that it is 'alien' to our current understandings and uses thought concepts/paradigms which are so different as to make it 'hard' to imagine.

Certainly understanding that the 'first will be last and the last will be first' and 'one must loose to win' etc... goes against our 'modus normalis', but then I would say that acquiring this 'different' (=redeemed) mindset is the 'work' of Christianity and so I would rather stick with a CV model than a potentially compromisable PSA one.

---

... grudgingly ... fair point.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm sorry, but I can't see, either that your analysis of the Bible is correct, or that the references that you quote could be in any way supportive of such a point of view. The reason for the veil, the description of God dwelling in unapproachable light, and so on, all point to the difficulty we have as sinners in approaching God, not the other way round. Those concessions were for our benefit, not His.

---

I don't get how a barrier to a relationship can only be one sided? If there is something 'in the way' how can it only keep mankind from God and not the other way round?

I appreciate that Jesus walked around with sinners ... how is that possible? Well all atonement models have a ready answer for that ... sin was dealt with at the cross!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Evil can never be defeated by returning violence for violence, because the cycle merely perpetuates itself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
So, with those few words, you set aside the whole of Jesus teaching on forgiveness. I'm sorry, I don't for the life of me see how anyone who has read the Gospels (or even the Old Testament) can write that. Again and again, Jesus teaches that we should forgive our enemies, do good to those who persecute us, etc, etc. Show me a single example where He so much as hints that we should not give such forgiveness unconditionally. And unconditional means just that, without conditions. No need for payment or retribution, in fact those things are expressly forbidden by Him. Furthermore, the whole of the Old Testament is full of examples where the people of Israel long for justice, the putting right of wrongs, the remaking of the order, (though most often thought of in political terms). Retributive justice is just the result of the inability of restorative justice to operate in a fallen world, as Richard so eloquently demonstrates.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Furthermore, with reference to OT blood sacrifices, if you are suggesting (correctly) that they prefigure Christ's sacrifice, then in order to use that fact to support the theory that our sins, in Christ, were being punished, you would have to demonstate that the lamb being sacrificed was bearing the sin of the people. But of course, that can't be done from the scriptures, since the "sin-bearer" was the scapegoat, driven out into the wilderness, not killed. The sacrificial animal, had it been bearing sin, would have been unclean, and thus not "perfect and spotless", the requirement for an acceptable sacrifice. So, was Christ sacrificed, yes, but was God, in Him, punishing our sin, no.

---

I'm not sure that you are being fair here JJ - how could Jesus possibly fulfil every single OT type in an exact correspondence at the same time? Anyway, was not this part of Hebrews 13 - when Jesus 'goes outside the camp'? The OT Professor Gordon Wenham has done some work on this ... I'll have to try and remember where I put it