|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Christus Victor
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
So it is the word appeasement that you cannot stomach and to eliminate it from your concept of God's justice you are prepared to redefine such tems as ransom.
I'm not redefining anything. I'm just quoting Scripture.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
To me, however, you are attempting to change the nature of truth by redefining it.
Do you have an alternate explanation of the passages I quoted. Are they not the Bible? Are they taken out of context? Mistranslated? Misinterpreted?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I'd rather deal with the God of the scriptures than the palatable God of someone's 21st century theology.
Then why not respond to the Scripture I quoted? What do you think the disciple meant when he said that he had hoped that Jesus would redeem Israel in Luke 24? Was he hoping that Jesus would give His life to pay the price of sin and appease God's wrath? Isn't it evident that he was hoping Christ would liberate them from their enemies? ![[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
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
So it is the word appeasement that you cannot stomach and to eliminate it from your concept of God's justice you are prepared to redefine such tems as ransom.
I'm not redefining anything. I'm just quoting Scripture.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
To me, however, you are attempting to change the nature of truth by redefining it.
Do you have an alternate explanation of the passages I quoted. Are they not the Bible? Are they taken out of context? Mistranslated? Misinterpreted?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I'd rather deal with the God of the scriptures than the palatable God of someone's 21st century theology.
Then why not respond to the Scripture I quoted? What do you think the disciple meant when he said that he had hoped that Jesus would redeem Israel in Luke 24? Was he hoping that Jesus would give His life to pay the price of sin and appease God's wrath? Isn't it evident that he was hoping Christ would liberate them from their enemies?
Ok Freddy Luke 24. Yes the disciples were hoping for a reinstatment of an earthly kingdom of God presided over by messiah and which would restore Jewish nationalism and drive out Rome.
However, their notion of redemption is still the reclaiming of a possession in pawn. To redeem is to restore to rightful rule or ownership. The concept is later taken, as you know, by Paul and welded to the concept of a more personal salvation.
The basis of Paul's thinking is that personal, individual redemption was achieved at the cost of a sinless sacrifice. It was appropriated by faith in Christ by the believer who was then demmed to have been subsumed into Christ at his death and again at his resurrection. The consequent transaction, triggered by the faith of the believer, resulted in a new creation.
Gal 2:20 "If anyone be in Christ he is a new creation. Old things are passed away, behold all things become new." Paul further developed the concept of redemption as an ongoing walk. There would only by a full redemption at Christ's return or the believer's death but we can meanwhile have a treasure in earthern vessels.
Redemption, then requires a transaction only possible because the messiah died for sin.
I don't object to what you quote but question its relevance to the issue. You do try to eliminate the negative overtones of 'ransom.'
[ 30. July 2007, 02:17: 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 it is the word appeasement that you cannot stomach and to eliminate it from your concept of God's justice you are prepared to redefine such tems as ransom.
I don't see how we are redefining it at all. We are using the historical biblical meaning.
quote:
Ransom clearly contains more than a mere connotation of payment. It is enforced, violent, compelled payment. It is not paid as by right it is demanded as by necessity.
You are again making assertions. You need to demonstrate what you claim, not merely assert it.
Ransom is a term that refers to being bought out of slavery, and in the Jewish context refers to God ransoming his people out of bondage which the entire messianic hopes hung on. God was not "compelled" to pay a ransom to Pharaoh.
quote:
By asserting there is no appeasement in the cross you render it somehow more palatable.
No, we make it true to what Scripture actually says.
quote:
By saying ransom has no concept of appeasement by which I mean 'legal satisfaction' or sense of 'putting to rights in a cosmic sense', you manage to create a construct whereby God is not vindictive and capricious.
Well God is not vindictive and capricious. Surely you would agree with that. However the cross DOES put things right in a cosmic sense, and it is also a legal satisfaction. Satisfaction in its original meaning means "to compensate" or "to make restitution". The cross does make things right in that sense by cleansing us of our sins through Christ's blood shed for us.
quote:
All the scriptures I heve quoted clearly imply that Christ's death was a necessity demanded by a Holy God for our salvation. It wasn't as if he had an option.
Yes, and I agree with you that it was.
quote:
However, you say you can have the whole salvation package and that was an act of love but God did not justly demand the blood of a perfect sacrifice for any necessary reason.
No I do not. Of course God justly demanded the blood of a perfect sacrifice for a necessary reason. Just not the unbiblical one you propose.
quote:
It leaves the question open as what was the real purpose of the cross.
Yes it does. Would you like to know what it is?
quote:
It takes away the legal ground of forgiveness and it fudges the issue of how precisely sin is atoned for.
You can't really claim that if you don't know what the alternative theory is, can you?
quote:
I'd rather deal with the God of the scriptures than the palatable God of someone's 21st century theology.
I could say the same to you. PSA is appealing to a fleshly desire for payback justice that is deeply rooted in our worldly western penal justice system. It makes the cross make sense to that mindset when Paul clearly says the cross is "foolishness" and a "scandal". PSA removes the scandal of the cross, and puts in its place a theory that appeals to our flesh and worldly ideas of justice.
quote:
At least you know where you stand when God is God, sin is sin and sin is atoned for at the cross enabling me to walk free of it.
Luther could say the same thing, yet did not share your view of appeasement. Neither did the vast majority of Christians for the first 1000 years of the church, nor does the entire Catholic or Eastern Orthodox church today.
quote:
As stated many times previously, the CV model as I understand it softens the seriousness of sin and depersonalises the whole deal of salvation by fudging the purpose of the cross.
Then I don't think you understand it.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
To me, however, you are attempting to change the nature of truth by redefining it. By asserting there is no appeasement in the cross you render it somehow more palatable. By saying ransom has no concept of appeasement by which I mean 'legal satisfaction' or sense of 'putting to rights in a cosmic sense', you manage to create a construct whereby God is not vindictive and capricious. It wasn't as if he had an option.
No, we are just demonstrating that what you think you see in the Bible is not really there at all.
quote:
By saying ransom has no concept of appeasement by which I mean 'legal satisfaction' or sense of 'putting to rights in a cosmic sense', you manage to create a construct whereby God is not vindictive and capricious.
Is, then, God vindictive and capricious? Of course the Cross "puts things right in a cosmic sense" (though I would argue this has nothing whatsoever to do with "legal satisfaction", which is more to do with human attempts to limit God than eternal verities). Of course the cross was necessary for this "cosmic putting right". However, all this has nothing to do with justice as you seem to understand it (ie, notions of punishimg the wrongdoer), and everything to do with rectifying the injustice. This can only be done restoratively, and if you can't see that as a thread running through Paul's writings, let alone in the Old Testament, then you are missing a serious theme of Scripture.
Of course sin must be put to death. It must be put to death in us, as, by the Holy Spirit, we die to self and live to Christ. But to talk of sin being punished is to miss the point. You can't punish in the abstract. God's desire (even, as you see it, His constraint) is not to punish sin, but to make it exist no more.
You seem to exist in a strange, dualistic world. Here are one set of people, the wicked, and over there are another set, those who, in the words of Psalm 1, are the ones who walk in the way of the Lord. But the truth is, we are both those people, we are the wicked; we are the redeemed. How could even God punish the one without punishing the other, when it is the same person. You see, it just doesn't work. Punishment doesn't defeat sin; only forgiveness can do that. And after we are forgiven, then God can go about putting things right, by recreating the universe, with us as, after Jesus, its first citizens.
You ask, "how can a God committed to justice, let sin go unpunished?" It is just this problem that Paul addresses in Romans 3:25-26. He does it by demonstrating that our definition of justice, based as it is on retribution, is just a fallen shadow of real justice ("because of the hardness of your hearts..."), which is the unmaking of sin, the removal of all the damage it has done, and the recreation of both its victims and its perpetrators. And of course, there is a cost to this. To forgiveness, it is the cost of absorbing into Himself the hurt of being sinned against, and refusing to take retributive action when He could quite justly have done so! To restoration, it is the cost of the kenosis of the Son, the subjection of the Creator to the created, and, ultimately, yes, the cross. But don't debase the Paschal event by saying it has anything to do with punishment. It is the complete abrogation of punishment, the defeat of violence by submission, the conquest of death by dying.
quote:
All the scriptures I heve quoted clearly imply that Christ's death was a necessity demanded by a Holy God for our salvation.
No they don't. That is an assertion. It may be obvious to you, but it is not obvious to those with whom you are debating, not yet to the vast majority of Christians who lived their faith and even died for their faith over the past 2000 years. A few posts ago you wrote "Ro 5:9 clearly states we are saved from God's wrath through him. How could you not read appeasement into that? (emphasis mine)" When I challenged you that, in fact, the verse did not say that at all, you responded with words to the effect, "well, that's what it means anyway". Well, I'm afraid something is either clear or it's not clear. Unfortunately, Scripture, like truth, it is seldom plain and never simple.
This seems to me to sum up how you are handling the scriptures here: you make an assertion, and when asked to back it up you then quote some verses. When your interpretation of those verses is challenged, you repeat the assertion, rather than dealing with the challenge. This makes debating with you incredibly frustrating, because it gives the impression that you are not treating the contra-arguments with sufficient seriousness. It also means that we keep going around in circles.
quote:
However, you say you can have the whole salvation package and that was an act of love but God did not justly demand the blood of a perfect sacrifice for any necessary reason. It leaves the question open as what was the real purpose of the cross. It takes away the legal ground of forgiveness and it fudges the issue of how precisely sin is atoned for.
Well, I'm quite certain that God did not demand anything, but that isn't to say that the sacrifdice was not necessary. Of course it was necessary, and I, amongst others, have gone on for 20-odd pages explaining why it was necessary. As for "the legal ground for forgiveness", forgiveness is relational. It doesn't need a "legal ground". If I offend you, you can either choose to forgive me, or decline to so choose. The question of the law does not enter into it. If I steal your car, there are consequences of my actions, which will involve the law. They will involve the law whether or not you choose to forgive me. Atonement is about dealing with those consequences, that is, our enslavement to decay, so in that sense it has legal connotations (though actually the "law" concerned is ontological rather than moral), but the only basis for forgiveness is the character of God, and, when we forgive others, how much we share in that character.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
It also means that we keep going around in circles.
I've been noticing that. With that in mind, I think I might bow out for a while.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Jamat, my thinking is pretty much like Sharktacos and JJ. Here are my comments on your last post.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Ok Freddy Luke 24. Yes the disciples were hoping for a reinstatment of an earthly kingdom of God presided over by messiah and which would restore Jewish nationalism and drive out Rome.
However, their notion of redemption is still the reclaiming of a possession in pawn. To redeem is to restore to rightful rule or ownership.
Yes, that's right. I'm happy that you are willing to see redemption as any means of driving out the enemy, and not strictly as a sacrifice or transaction.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The concept is later taken, as you know, by Paul and welded to the concept of a more personal salvation.
The basis of Paul's thinking is that personal, individual redemption was achieved at the cost of a sinless sacrifice.
Your admission above means that the nature of Christ's sacrifice was not necessarily a payment, but could be a sacrifice to achieve liberation by force.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It was appropriated by faith in Christ by the believer who was then demmed to have been subsumed into Christ at his death and again at his resurrection. The consequent transaction, triggered by the faith of the believer, resulted in a new creation.
Gal 2:20 "If anyone be in Christ he is a new creation. Old things are passed away, behold all things become new."
It's not a transaction, though. It is about belief in and loyalty to a cause, which brings about change.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Paul further developed the concept of redemption as an ongoing walk.
Yes. The ongoing walk is implicit in the whole scheme, not something added on.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
There would only by a full redemption at Christ's return or the believer's death but we can meanwhile have a treasure in earthern vessels.
Yes.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Redemption, then requires a transaction only possible because the messiah died for sin.
No. It's not that. It's a liberty that is only possible because Jesus overcame the power of darkness. Just as the disciples expected, but on a higher level.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I don't object to what you quote but question its relevance to the issue. You do try to eliminate the negative overtones of 'ransom.'
Ransom is a word that only occurs fifteen times in Scripture and only twice in the New Testament. Your use of it does not take into account the way that it is used in all the Scriptures. Like redemption it is more than a simple buying back or payment of a price. The connotation of both of these words is more military and violent, more about power, than PSA allows for.
In any case I am happy that you understand that this was the disciples' understanding of redemption. It makes much more sense to me that Jesus overcame the spiritual enemies of Israel than that He appeased God. God can only be appeased by the overcoming of His enemies. His goal is for sin to come to an end and for people to be free of it.
[ 31. July 2007, 01:47: 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
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Interesting that when I read 'inference' you shout 'unjustified assertion'.
Let's look at Ro 3:24,5
It states: "God displayed Christ as a propitiation in his blood through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because in the forbearance of God he passed over sins previously committed" NASB
OK, God displayed Christ as a propitiation.
Unpack this as: 'God, in order to show that he didn't just forgive sin will nilly, made a display of the shed blood of his own son in order to show the created universe that he was not winking at evil. He was enforcing justice thus showing he was righteous as well as merciful. This was important because that same created universe understood that God's forgiveness of sins in the past, based on animal sacrifices, was a mere stopgap, a temporary measure. Moreover, that 'propitiation' covered the sin in the sense of dealing with its consequence, dissolving it in God's eyes. We people, can now benefit simply by believing that Christ has done this for us and committing to the substitutionary sacrifice.'
Anything wrong with this analysis or are you going to say it is mere assertion?
I think you need to be careful with asserting that "most Christians over the last 2000 years believed...whatever". How can any of us really know? And since when was the truth subject to a majority vote?
The latest scholar may well be out of fashion in 50 years and history will be rewritten again.
In my view, scripture does assert Christ's victory-of course it does. (Col 2:13-15). It seems to me that one must accept on balance as well, that Christ took the rap for us all in achieving it. Execution by crucifixion WAS a punishment though a huge miscarriage of justice since Christ was innocent. Don't we appreciate the cross more because he was punished for us? We then don't have to be. Surely that is good news?
--------------------
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:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Interesting that when I read 'inference' you shout 'unjustified assertion'.
Let's look at Ro 3:24,5
It states: "God displayed Christ as a propitiation in his blood through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because in the forbearance of God he passed over sins previously committed" NASB
OK, God displayed Christ as a propitiation.
Unpack this as: 'God, in order to show that he didn't just forgive sin will nilly, made a display of the shed blood of his own son in order to show the created universe that he was not winking at evil. He was enforcing justice thus showing he was righteous as well as merciful. This was important because that same created universe understood that God's forgiveness of sins in the past, based on animal sacrifices, was a mere stopgap, a temporary measure. Moreover, that 'propitiation' covered the sin in the sense of dealing with its consequence, dissolving it in God's eyes. We people, can now benefit simply by believing that Christ has done this for us and committing to the substitutionary sacrifice.'
Anything wrong with this analysis or are you going to say it is mere assertion?
Yes, it is mere assertion.
You are projecting onto the text an unbiblical understanding of what justice means based on a Latin mistranslation.
The Greek word for justice used throughout Romans 3 is δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosunē) which is translated as either "justice" or "righteousness".
Dikaiosunē is the same word the LXX uses to translate the Hebrew צדקה(t'sedeka) in the Old Testament which likewise can be translated either as righteousness or justice. Because the LXX was the official translation the New Testament authors used to quote from the Old Testament, it follows that Paul was thinking of t'sedeka justice in Romans when he used the word dikaiosunē . There are many words for justice in Hebrew, and among them t'sedeka justice refers specifically to setting things right. T'sedeka justice/righteousness is associated with acts of charity, and today Jewish charities are often named t'sedeka which has become synonymous with charity. Likewise, in Germany the official social justice and welfare arm of the Lutheran Evangelical church is called “die Diakonie” (www.diakonie.de) after the Greek “dikaiosunē”, which is also where the word "deakon" comes from, meaning "one who serves".
This understanding of restorative social justice was key to Martin Luther's breakthrough where he rediscovered the Gospel in Romans. Like everyone else he had been reading the Bible in Latin which for several hundred years had been the only translation available. The word for justice in Latin here is iustitio which is the word our own “justice” derives from. In Latin iustitio refers to a quid-pro-quo payback justice, so Luther (as many people today) had assumed that the passage in Romans 3 was about retributive justice. But in the original Greek, and especially considering Paul's own Jewish roots, this was not at all the sense of t'sedeka/dikaiosunē justice. Take a look at the passage, keeping in mind the meaning of dikaiosunē as restorative making-things-right justice.
"But now a dikaiosunē (loving restoration) from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify . This dikaiosunē (loving restoration) from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are dikaioō (set right) freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as the one who would turn aside his wrath, taking away sin through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his dikaiosunē (loving restoration), because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his dikaiosunē (loving restoration) at the present time, so as to be dikaios(righteously loving) and the one who dikaioō (lovingly sets right) those who have faith in Jesus.
We can see that if the above is read (as it had been by Anselm and Aquinas and so many others in the Latin church who did not have access to the original Greek) as iustitio retributive justice, that one can easily read into the above text the idea of penal substitution. Which is why Luther's discovery was so earth shaking. It completely revolutionized his understanding of what grace was about: t'sedeka/dikaiosunē justice.
So again I say: your interpretation of payback justice in Romans 3 is based on a Latin mistranslation. What Romans says is that God held back punishment - the consequence of sin - until he could reveal his loving justice which sets-right in Jesus. This came "not through law" or by the way of an eye for an eye, because as Paul has been arguing through all of Romans that kind of justice only leads to death. But now a setting-things-right justice has been revealed apart from law.
The Greek word hilasterion which your version above translates as "propituation" and onto which you project your entire concept of vengeance justice can either be translated as “expiate” (which implies cleansing sin) or “propitiate” (which implies appeasing wrath). ). C.H. Dodd famously argued that in pagan Greek literature the word hilasterion referred to placating an offended person, but that in the LXX (the Greek translation of the Old Testament that the writers of the New Testament used) hilasterion was used in the sense of purifying, canceling, cleansing, and forgiving sin. In other words, the focus was not on the sacrifice changing God's attitude through mollification, but on changing us by removing or cleansing our sin. As a result of Dodd's research, the Revised Standard Version translates Romans 3:25 as "whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood".
Leon Morris challenged Dodd's linguistic argument saying that the main thrust of Paul's argument up to that point in Romans had been focused on the problem of wrath, and so the solution outlined in Romans 3:25 had to present a solution to the problem of wrath. Morris is right of course that this is the thrust of Paul's argument, but this does not undo Dodd's observations about the meaning of the Hebrew sacrifices. So how can we put this all together in view of what we know about the restorative (not retributive) justice Paul is speaking of here?
The NIV has the most accurate reading putting together first of all the sense of hilasterion being the translation of the Hebrew "kipper" referring to the mercy seat of the Arc, so that verse 25 reads "God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement", but in a footnote the NIV combines both the idea of expiation and propitiation together, blending both Morris and Dodd's insights into the idea of the Temple sacrifice, "as the one who would turn aside his wrath, taking away sin".
Paul is arguing that we all have played a part in hurt and injustice. But God held back the world of hurt that we had coming to us, and instead offered himself in Christ as a sacrifice that would cleanse us of the cancer of sin in us (Dodd's expiation). With the problem of sin removed from us through Christ, the just reason for wrath is also removed. God is not appeased in the sense of someone covering his eye's or gratifying his anger (as if God's anger was a fleshly rage), rather by solving the problem of sin in us, God has removed the cause of wrath and brought us into right relationship with him, as Paul says, "so that God is just and the one who justifies sinners" (sets them aright).
This reading makes sense with the original Greek, with the Hebrew understanding of the sacrifices, and Paul's entire line of argument in Romans, where as your interpretation is completely foreign to his thinking and indeed you need to assume (on zero evidence) that all of your theory hangs on an interpretation of a single word "propitiation", that is quite a lot to hang on such a narrow thread.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Sharktacos, I am impressed with your clarity and research here. I'll buy your book when it comes out. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Let's look at Ro 3:24,5
It states: "God displayed Christ as a propitiation in his blood through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because in the forbearance of God he passed over sins previously committed" NASB
OK, God displayed Christ as a propitiation.
Unpack this as: 'God, in order to show that he didn't just forgive sin will nilly, made a display of the shed blood of his own son in order to show the created universe that he was not winking at evil. He was enforcing justice thus showing he was righteous as well as merciful.
I don't think anyone is too worried about God forgiving sins willy-nilly. What we're worried about is that He apparently allows the evil to triumph, and that He seems slow to rescue His people. The justice we are looking for is that He will make things right by accomplishing a rescue, or by removing sin and its power from our lives.
So Sharktacos' argument about the meaning of the word "propitiation" there, and that it is about Christ cleansing us, is correct, I think. It's not about "pay-back" but about accomplishing justice.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
. Because the LXX was the official translation the New Testament authors used to quote from the Old Testament, it follows that Paul was thinking of t'sedeka justice in Romans when he used the word dikaiosunē . Paul is arguing that we all have played a part in hurt and injustice. But God held back the world of hurt that we had coming to us, and instead offered himself in Christ as a sacrifice that would cleanse us of the cancer of sin in us (Dodd's expiation). With the problem of sin removed from us through Christ, the just reason for wrath is also removed. God is not appeased in the sense of someone covering his eye's or gratifying his anger (as if God's anger was a fleshly rage), rather by solving the problem of sin in us, God has removed the cause of wrath and brought us into right relationship with him, as Paul says, "so that God is just and the one who justifies sinners" (sets them aright).
This reading makes sense with the original Greek, with the Hebrew understanding of the sacrifices, and Paul's entire line of argument in Romans, where as your interpretation is completely foreign to his thinking and indeed you need to assume (on zero evidence) that all of your theory hangs on an interpretation of a single word "propitiation", that is quite a lot to hang on such a narrow thread. [/QB]
Well, it seems your language here gets quite close to a concept of atonement that is what I actually believe.
On the contrary I think it is quite a strong rope. The concept of propitiation or 'covering' is really the Hebrew version of the concept of atonement anyway. God covered the Edenic couple with animal skins thereby making atonement for their sins by the shedding of blood.
'Dikaiosune' is from the Greek root where we get our whole concept of justification and there are five variations on it. The primary concept is that God declares us righteous through our acceptance of the sacrifice of the Messiah's blood. I think you are asserting at least as much as I may be when you declare so boldly what Paul MUST have had in mind in his Greek rendition of a Hebrew concept. It is a pity he isn't here to clarify for us both just what his thinking is. Nevertheless, the whole raft of scriptural argument concerning justification is based around the need for shed blood. That need, I still assert, is because a life is needed to deal with sin and the only reason that this could be is that God is otherwise poised to judge it. Romans 1:18 suggests this anyway. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness."
Incidentally what do you make of Col 1:20 and 21. Jesus "made peace through the blood of his cross". What sort of peace if not a peace that solved the problem of God's wrath and one can infer or assert if you like to insist on that word, that there was a state of war in operation that was solved. God's wrath was somehow appeased against sin and sinners thereby.
Weren't you going to bow out incidentally?
--------------------
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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jamat:
Incidentally what do you make of Col 1:20 and 21. Jesus "made peace through the blood of his cross". What sort of peace if not a peace that solved the problem of God's wrath and one can infer or assert if you like to insist on that word, that there was a state of war in operation that was solved. God's wrath was somehow appeased against sin and sinners thereby. [/QUOTE}
[code]
[ 01. August 2007, 18:24: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Afghan
Shipmate
# 10478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Likewise, in Germany the official social justice and welfare arm of the Lutheran Evangelical church is called “die Diakonie” (www.diakonie.de) after the Greek “dikaiosunē”, which is also where the word "deakon" comes from, meaning "one who serves".
There is, as far as I'm aware, absolutely no etymological link between diakonos - 'servant' - and dikaiosune - 'righteousness'.
--------------------
Credibile quia ineptum
Posts: 438 | From: Essex | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Sorry, my connection here in my wilderness cabin is intermittent... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Incidentally what do you make of Col 1:20 and 21. Jesus "made peace through the blood of his cross". What sort of peace if not a peace that solved the problem of God's wrath and one can infer or assert if you like to insist on that word, that there was a state of war in operation that was solved. God's wrath was somehow appeased against sin and sinners thereby.
What sort of peace? The same peace that happens whenever the power of the enemy is overcome.
It's not that God's wrath was appeased. Rather Jesus subdued the sins that were the cause of the wrath in the first place. The passage says:
quote:
Colossians 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.
21 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22 in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight— 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.
We were alienated from God by our wicked works. Christ made it possible for us to renounce those works. If we continue in faith in Him, and obedience to His words, we can become holy, blameless, and above reproach in His sight.
God's wrath is due to our wickedness. The only way to appease it is for us to stop being wicked. Jesus made it possible for us to change, through His "work" and His words, culminating in His death on the cross and resurrection. In this way He overcame sin and made it possible for us to be free of its power if we believe in Him and obey His words.
There is no appeasement here other than the appeasement that comes with victory. That victory was won with blood in the same sense that any victory is won with the blood of those who fight.
--------------------
"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
Afghan, You are right. I was mistaken about the deacon connection.
Jamat, I was going to bow out, but got interested again. Is that bad?
So does that mean you are agreeing with me in my interpretation of Romans 3?
--------------------
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:
The NIV has the most accurate reading putting together first of all the sense of hilasterion being the translation of the Hebrew "kipper" referring to the mercy seat of the Arc, so that verse 25 reads "God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement", but in a footnote the NIV combines both the idea of expiation and propitiation together, blending both Morris and Dodd's insights into the idea of the Temple sacrifice, "as the one who would turn aside his wrath, taking away sin".
Paul is arguing that we all have played a part in hurt and injustice. But God held back the world of hurt that we had coming to us, and instead offered himself in Christ as a sacrifice that would cleanse us of the cancer of sin in us (Dodd's expiation). With the problem of sin removed from us through Christ, the just reason for wrath is also removed. God is not appeased in the sense of someone covering his eye's or gratifying his anger (as if God's anger was a fleshly rage), rather by solving the problem of sin in us, God has removed the cause of wrath and brought us into right relationship with him, as Paul says, "so that God is just and the one who justifies sinners" (sets them aright).
This reading makes sense with the original Greek, with the Hebrew understanding of the sacrifices, and Paul's entire line of argument in Romans, where as your interpretation is completely foreign to his thinking and indeed you need to assume (on zero evidence) that all of your theory hangs on an interpretation of a single word "propitiation", that is quite a lot to hang on such a narrow thread.
I was referring to the part of your post above which seems to me not too different to a model that works for me. I never saw God as vengeful or angry. In fact as the opposite merciful and loving which is why he has provided a way hrough the problem of sin.
Your second paragraph seems exactly right to me. The 'just reason for wrath being removed' is really the same as saying that the cross enabled God to judge sin which deflected that judgement from those who would have been under it had the cross not happened. I don't see this as a lot different to the idea of God being 'appeased'. I don't think such a concept is that foreign to what you have written here.
[ 03. August 2007, 02:55: 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:
The 'just reason for wrath being removed' is really the same as saying that the cross enabled God to judge sin which deflected that judgement from those who would have been under it had the cross not happened.
The difference I think is that instead of saying God judged sin (ie punishing sin) it says he averted judging sin by justifying us (making us right). In other words, instead of understanding justice as punishment, it understands justice as restoration.
Also it stresses that our problem cannot be solved by averting punishment, because the problem of sin is in us like a cancer and that cancer needs to be removed.
Another thing I think is vital is that we not limit sin to our guilt. This is part of it for sure, but there is also the hurt done to us that is a huge focus of the Gospels. Both can separate us from God, and God in Christ entered into both for us. So we need an understanding of Christ "bearing our sorrow" and being "pierced for our transgressions" that takes into account that we are both victim and perpetrator in one. Sinners and sinned against.
Still with me?
--------------------
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:
The 'just reason for wrath being removed' is really the same as saying that the cross enabled God to judge sin which deflected that judgement from those who would have been under it had the cross not happened.
The difference I think is that instead of saying God judged sin (ie punishing sin) it says he averted judging sin by justifying us (making us right). In other words, instead of understanding justice as punishment, it understands justice as restoration.
Also it stresses that our problem cannot be solved by averting punishment, because the problem of sin is in us like a cancer and that cancer needs to be removed.
Another thing I think is vital is that we not limit sin to our guilt. This is part of it for sure, but there is also the hurt done to us that is a huge focus of the Gospels. Both can separate us from God, and God in Christ entered into both for us. So we need an understanding of Christ "bearing our sorrow" and being "pierced for our transgressions" that takes into account that we are both victim and perpetrator in one. Sinners and sinned against.
Still with me?
Well, I see where you are at. No I don't agree that justice is only restorative though it can be. Justice is a bigger idea that. It takes in the idea of payback, of revenge, of retribution and restoration and civilises them and synthesizes them. I do not agree that a concept of justice that includes a penal or retributive element is a somehow 'fallen' concept of justice which is what I think you may have argued earlier.
I see the cross as restoring and as redeeming by breaking the power of our human self-centredness which is the essential nature of 'sin'. I cannot see that sin being atoned for, paid for and covered, would have been possible without taking a life as in OT sacrifices which typified and precursed calvary. And I still see that as having an aspect of the penal about it. Death is punishment. I do not see the scapegoat argument which was discussed earlier in the thread as more than a red-herring here. It is this aspect that emphasises to me the serious nature of sin. So serious that Hell would have been the consequence for us if redemption had not occurred. I do not see PSA as teaching merely that one can avoid punishment by accepting Christ, though some might see it so, or that averting punishment solves our problem. I have never argued this way.
I would completely endorse your last paragraph above.
--------------------
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:
It takes in the idea of payback, of revenge, of retribution and restoration and civilises them and synthesizes them.
Can you cite some passages in the NT that define justice in terms of payback, revenge, and retribution?
As I have argued, Romans 3 is not.
I'm assuming you mean theses three as synonyms rather than as 3 separate concepts. Correct me if I have misunderstood.
--------------------
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:
It takes in the idea of payback, of revenge, of retribution and restoration and civilises them and synthesizes them.
Can you cite some passages in the NT that define justice in terms of payback, revenge, and retribution?
As I have argued, Romans 3 is not.
I'm assuming you mean theses three as synonyms rather than as 3 separate concepts. Correct me if I have misunderstood.
\
Try Ro 1:18 as a classic and in 1 Pet 2:14 suggests kings are in place for a 'punishment of evildoers' v24 states he 'bore' our sins upon the tree which suggests to me he was punished for them. 2 Pet 2:9 states that the Lord himself knows how to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgement'. Also 2 Pet 3:7 states that the present creation is being stored up for the destruction of ungodly men.'
--------------------
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:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
It takes in the idea of payback, of revenge, of retribution and restoration and civilises them and synthesizes them.
Can you cite some passages in the NT that define justice in terms of payback, revenge, and retribution?
As I have argued, Romans 3 is not.
I'm assuming you mean theses three as synonyms rather than as 3 separate concepts. Correct me if I have misunderstood.
\
Try Ro 1:18 as a classic and in 1 Pet 2:14 suggests kings are in place for a 'punishment of evildoers' v24 states he 'bore' our sins upon the tree which suggests to me he was punished for them. 2 Pet 2:9 states that the Lord himself knows how to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgement'. Also 2 Pet 3:7 states that the present creation is being stored up for the destruction of ungodly men.'
Romans 1:18 does not contain any mention of justice. It's about wrath. Likewise 1 Pet 2:14 is about punishment not justice. 2 Pet 2:9 is about judgment not justice.
You do realize that there is a major difference between justice and judgment, right? In English the two words sound similar, but in Greek they are unrelated and really opposites of each others. Justice is "dikaiosunē" which is restorative justice (a making things right), while judgment is "krisis" from which the English word "crisis" derives. We are in a krisis because of our sin, and so God holds back the krisis until he can dikaiosunē (set aright) us. There is no concept of God's justice (dikaiosunē) being punitive in the NT. Krisis is not the means to the solution, it is the problem that God solves through dikaiosunē.
[ 04. August 2007, 08:23: Message edited by: sharktacos ]
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
[qb] [QUOTE]It takes in the idea of payback, of revenge, of retribution and restoration and civilises them and synthesizes them.
Can you cite some passages in the NT that define justice in terms of payback, revenge, and retribution?
As I have argued, Romans 3 is not.
I'm assuming you mean theses three as synonyms rather than as 3 separate concepts. Correct me if I have misunderstood.
\
QUOTE]Romans 1:18 does not contain any mention of justice. It's about wrath. Likewise 1 Pet 2:14 is about punishment not justice. 2 Pet 2:9 is about judgment not justice.
You do realize that there is a major difference between justice and judgment, right? In
Wrong I'm afraid.
It is simply a matter of logic. 'Judgement' is the end result of 'justice.' This applies in both a positive and a negative outcome depending on the case before the judge. He might find an accused innocent or not. or for one party against another. This is the process of justice. The two terms judgement and justice are co relatives, like 'rights' and 'responsibilities'.
God's wrath in Ro 1:18 is AGAINST UNRIGHTEOUSNESS. Thus it is self evident that he is being JUST when he judges.Ro 3:8 Paul's aside regarding those who slander him
"Their condemnation is just"
shows that he, at any rate, clearly thinks of the concept of punishment in terms of just deserts.
Paul as a representative of Godly thinking on this issue is for me, definitive.
[ 06. August 2007, 02:19: 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:
It is simply a matter of logic. 'Judgement' is the end result of 'justice.'
That may be true of the English words in our judicial system. It is clearly not true of the Greek words, nor does it fit with Paul's argument in Romans. Wrath and krisis is what God's justice/righteousness save us from. That's the whole point of Paul's argument: a way to escape wrath through grace.
quote:
God's wrath in Ro 1:18 is AGAINST UNRIGHTEOUSNESS. Thus it is self evident that he is being JUST when he judges.
Right, and think that all the way through: it means, Paul argues, that we are all dead. So we need some way to save us from this deserved wrath. That salvation comes Paul says through justice, which is not by nature punitive but restorative - justifying. Justice (making right) is the antidote to the crisis of judgment just as medicine heals disease.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Wrong I'm afraid.
It is simply a matter of logic. 'Judgement' is the end result of 'justice.' This applies in both a positive and a negative outcome depending on the case before the judge. He might find an accused innocent or not. or for one party against another. This is the process of justice. The two terms judgement and justice are co relatives, like 'rights' and 'responsibilities'.
Not at all! Judgement is actually, in the biblical sense "the declaring of God's mind". This can, in ordinary useage, be the announcement of the verdict of a court, and that may well be, in human terms, either conviction or acquittal, but it ain't necessarily so. To read this meaning back into scripture is to presuppose a legal, rather than a relational, framework for the interaction between God and His people. Now the fact that Paul readily uses legal terminology does not necessarily mean that he believed that there was such a real-life basis to this interaction. I believe, in the absense of any such indication from the teaching of Jesus, that he was using legal analogies to try to explain those teachings. And as such, they are effective, as long as we recognise them for what they are.
Justice, however, is quite independant of the law, though the law ought not to be independant of justice. Resort to the law is the last option available to those who have not received justice. The purpose of the law is redress, the nearest approach to justice of which human institutions are capable. But justice, in the biblical sense, can never be done by human means. That is the whole point of Paul's teaching - that the law is, in fact, ineffective, more than that, actually conterproductive, in bringing about justice (that is, in biblical terms, the restoration of all things, the bringing about of "righteousness".
Now, this is interesting:
quote:
God's wrath in Ro 1:18 is AGAINST UNRIGHTEOUSNESS. Thus it is self evident that he is being JUST when he judges.Ro 3:8 Paul's aside regarding those who slander him
"Their condemnation is just"
shows that he, at any rate, clearly thinks of the concept of punishment in terms of just deserts.
Paul as a representative of Godly thinking on this issue is for me, definitive.
Here, I think you have misunderstood my position and that of others who find PSA wanting. No-one here is saying that God is not justified in condemning unrighteousness, nor yet that he would not be totally within, if you like, his legal rights to exact punishment, under the law . But Paul's point is precisely that - God does not opewrate under those legal strictures. In Christ, He puts the law to death, for ever demonstrating by the act of Jesus' self-sacrifice, (though more than demonstrates, but YKWIM) that He is, in fact, not concerned with penal thinking, but rather with very un-legal, un fair, scandalous, undeserved grace. If anything should have brought about the immediate demise of thew human race in an act of cataclysmic "judgement", it was surely the cross. But God's defeat of evil comes not through some titanic explosion of divine fury, however justified that would be, but rather in the expression of far greater power, the power of love and forgiveness, the humility of the Father.
You see, that's my greatest concern with PSA. It "baptises" the norm of human behaviour, the propensity to find solutions in violence, the litigious spirit of demanding one's rights, the assumption that might makes right, that if we could only destroy our enemies, all woulf be well for us, and says that this is how God behaves. Well it isn't how God behaves, it is a projection of how we would behave if we were God. Jesus is how God behaves. That is the scandal of the cross, that God doesn't, in fact, care about being right, being justified. All He cares about is healing all His creatures, and restoring righteousness to creation.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Hi everyone - back from my hols. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Managed to read The Deathly Hallows and therefore was particularly annoyed to see that OliviaG had beat me (by at least a week!) to the observation that Rowling has basically earned squillions by writing an apologetic for CV... although I'm tempted to add that obviously means that CV belongs to the world of Wizards and polyjuice potions. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Glad to see that the old thread is still rumbling on.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
You see, that's my greatest concern with PSA. It "baptises" the norm of human behaviour, the propensity to find solutions in violence, the litigious spirit of demanding one's rights, the assumption that might makes right, that if we could only destroy our enemies, all woulf be well for us, and says that this is how God behaves...
We're back here again are we?
I still don't see how PSA is supposed to encourage violence. The whole point of PSA is that we are made righteous in Christ. Therefore on the one hand it is not the case of the innocent being punished (it is our sins that are found guilty) but on the other hand (and indeed the whole point of the NT) is that God does not give to us what we deserve. We are not punished ... so where is the encouragement to repay evil for evil?
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
...Well it isn't how God behaves, it is a projection of how we would behave if we were God. Jesus is how God behaves. That is the scandal of the cross, that God doesn't, in fact, care about being right, being justified. All He cares about is healing all His creatures, and restoring righteousness to creation.
The problem here, JJ, is that Romans 3: 26 makes it clear that God did care about being justified in his actions.
Indeed I was rather puzzled by the treatment that you gave Romans 5: 9 and Sharktacos gave to Romans 3: 20-26.
Romans 5: 9 - while the verse itself does not attribute 'the wrath' to God, the context of verse 10 returns to the theme of enemies being reconciled. While it may be grammatically possible it is strethching the context beyond breaking point to demand that wrath is being used in an abstract way.
Romans 3: 20-26 - I was going to draw our attention to the δικαιοσύνη word group. In English we have no way of showing that the noun and verb come from the same root word. However, Sharktacos' reading doesn't hold water. Language simply doesn't work like that. We can't go back to the OT and then import a very narrow and specific meaning to a word everytime we come acorss it (and its cognates). Righteousness is a good translation, 'righteousing' would be a good word for the verb ... if it existed in English! We also need to go to the context to see how a word is used.
And then he includes in his translation that Jesus' death removed God's wrath - I appreciate that doesn't necessarily involve punishment but it is surely what the word 'propitiation' (which we've been arguing about) means.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Punishment doesn't defeat sin; only forgiveness can do that. And after we are forgiven, then God can go about putting things right, by recreating the universe, with us as, after Jesus, its first citizens.
I realise this statement goes back a ways JJ but it interests me.
Forgiveness is a fruit or consequence of the cross right?
Is it not the cross that is the means of dealing with sin? I suspect you are placing forgiveness on some sort of platform by itself as an ultimate value when it really is dependent on something far more fundamental.
Now if we ask HOW the cross deals with sin (at the risk of going round the mountain again) we may find that it is because sin is judged there.
If we go further and ask what precisely is judged, then we must look at Christ's agony in gethsemane. Why the agony? I'd suggest that
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Wrong I'm afraid.
It is simply a matter of logic. 'Judgement' is the end result of 'justice.' This applies in both a positive and a negative outcome depending on the case before the judge. He might find an accused innocent or not. or for one party against another. This is the process of justice. The two terms judgement and justice are co relatives, like 'rights' and 'responsibilities'.
Not at all! Judgement is actually, in the biblical sense "the declaring of God's mind". This can, in ordinary useage, be the announcement of the verdict of a court, and that may well be, in human terms, either conviction or acquittal, but it ain't necessarily so. To read this meaning back into scripture is to presuppose a legal, rather than a relational, framework for the interaction between God and His people. Now the fact that Paul readily uses legal terminology does not necessarily mean that he believed that there was such a real-life basis to this interaction. I believe, in the absense of any such indication from the teaching of Jesus, that he was using legal analogies to try to explain those teachings. And as such, they are effective, as long as we recognise them for what they are.
Justice, however, is quite independant of the law, though the law ought not to be independant of justice. Resort to the law is the last option available to those who have not received justice. The purpose of the law is redress, the nearest approach to justice of which human institutions are capable. But justice, in the biblical sense, can never be done by human means. That is the whole point of Paul's teaching - that the law is, in fact, ineffective, more than that, actually conterproductive, in bringing about justice (that is, in biblical terms, the restoration of all things, the bringing about of "righteousness".
Now, this is interesting:
quote:
God's wrath in Ro 1:18 is AGAINST UNRIGHTEOUSNESS. Thus it is self evident that he is being JUST when he judges.Ro 3:8 Paul's aside regarding those who slander him
"Their condemnation is just"
shows that he, at any rate, clearly thinks of the concept of punishment in terms of just deserts.
Paul as a representative of Godly thinking on this issue is for me, definitive.
Here, I think you have misunderstood my position and that of others who find PSA wanting. No-one here is saying that God is not justified in condemning unrighteousness, nor yet that he would not be totally within, if you like, his legal rights to exact punishment, under the law . But Paul's point is precisely that - God does not opewrate under those legal strictures. In Christ, He puts the law to death, for ever demonstrating by the act of Jesus' self-sacrifice, (though more than demonstrates, but YKWIM) that He is, in fact, not concerned with penal thinking, but rather with very un-legal, un fair, scandalous, undeserved grace. If anything should have brought about the immediate demise of thew human race in an act of cataclysmic "judgement", it was surely the cross. But God's defeat of evil comes not through some titanic explosion of divine fury, however justified that would be, but rather in the expression of far greater power, the power of love and forgiveness, the humility of the Father.
You see, that's my greatest concern with PSA. It "baptises" the norm of human behaviour, the propensity to find solutions in violence, the litigious spirit of demanding one's rights, the assumption that might makes right, that if we could only destroy our enemies, all woulf be well for us, and says that this is how God behaves. Well it isn't how God behaves, it is a projection of how we would behave if we were God. Jesus is how God behaves. That is the scandal of the cross, that God doesn't, in fact, care about being right, being justified. All He cares about is healing all His creatures, and restoring righteousness to creation.
WEll I thought we dealt with the issue of legal as opposed to relational. To me, legal IS relational. It is a formalisation of relationship. The terms legal and relational are not antithetical.
God's defeat of evil is in dealing with its cause. The powerful and intrinsic selfishness inside humanity. That is why the cross makes so much sense. What cataclysmic explosion of wrath could have accomplished what it has? It is truly as you say but I would add also, through the judgement of the son as a sin offering. Is 53 states that he will give his life as a ransom for many.
PSA in my understanding in no way condones violence. What it does is provide a consistent, scriptural and very Jewish model that reconciles Christ with the Jewish worship patterns of the OT and the first century. By a scrificial, once for all sacrifical death he has forever brought to an end the sacrificial system by fuklfilling its requirements once as explained in Hebrews.
You simply can't have such fulfillment unless you see Christ as a sacrifice and unless you see God laying sin on him and then turning his face from the sinless one. God doesn't care about being right. Whoever said he did? He cares about an effective solution to the problem of sin. This involves making sinners righteous by providing a basis for forgiveness that is consistent with his nature of holiness.
I honestly think your concept of PSA is rather one dimensional.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
I suspect you are placing forgiveness on some sort of platform by itself as an ultimate value
Absolutely. Guilty as charged. That's exactly how I see forgiveness.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
I suspect you are placing forgiveness on some sort of platform by itself as an ultimate value
Absolutely. Guilty as charged. That's exactly how I see forgiveness.
Me too! But I claim the defence that Jesus had just this view of forgiveness as Himself. There is no hint in His teaching that forgiveness is in any way conditional. To make it consequent on legal satisfaction is a concept that cannot be traced to Jesus.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
I suspect you are placing forgiveness on some sort of platform by itself as an ultimate value
Absolutely. Guilty as charged. That's exactly how I see forgiveness.
Me too! But I claim the defence that Jesus had just this view of forgiveness as Himself. There is no hint in His teaching that forgiveness is in any way conditional. To make it consequent on legal satisfaction is a concept that cannot be traced to Jesus.
Well exactly. What I'm finding a little bit foreign in this debate is that anyone, given Jesus' teaching, would not see forgiveness as an inherent good, to be aspired to in all cases.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Welcome back, John. If I could just re-emphasise that I don't see PSA as justifying violence, nor am I accusing those who hold the view of being well disposed towards violence - I think that there are other things at work here independant of the atonement model. But I do think that the heart of PSA is a violent and retributive worldview, which, in fact, is at odds with the pacific and restorative worldview which is, in practice, held by the vast majority of its proponents. It's this cognitive dissonance between the practice and the theory which I find so odd.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
PSA in my understanding in no way condones violence. What it does is provide a consistent, scriptural and very Jewish model that reconciles Christ with the Jewish worship patterns of the OT and the first century. By a scrificial, once for all sacrifical death he has forever brought to an end the sacrificial system by fuklfilling its requirements once as explained in Hebrews.
Well, the Hebrews discussion is to do neither with CV nor with PSA as atonement models, but with a sacrificial model, atonement as the fulfillment of Jewish worship systems. You will find no argument from me there, but it has zilch to do with PSA. The sacrificial system is, indeed, fulfilled, but there is no penal element to that system
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
You simply can't have such fulfillment unless you see Christ as a sacrifice and unless you see God laying sin on him and then turning his face from the sinless one. God doesn't care about being right. Whoever said he did? He cares about an effective solution to the problem of sin. This involves making sinners righteous by providing a basis for forgiveness that is consistent with his nature of holiness.
I honestly think your concept of PSA is rather one dimensional.
I don't see what sacrifice has got to do with "God laying sin on him and then turning his face from the sinless one". Of course sinners need to be made righteous, but it does not require Jesus' death to make this happen from a moral point of view, (ie, for forgiveness), but from a practical (better, ontological) point of view. There is no moral problem to acquitting the guilty if the acts that made them guilty in the first place are unmade. This, istm, is the meaning of the Romans 3:25/26 passage.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
I realise this statement goes back a ways JJ but it interests me.
Forgiveness is a fruit or consequence of the cross right?
No, wrong. Salvation is the fruit of the cross, ontological change allowing us to be free of the bondage of our will to sin and death. Forgiveness is demonstrated at the cross, but its origins are in the heart of God. The cross is the consequence, not the root of forgiveness.
quote:
Now if we ask HOW the cross deals with sin (at the risk of going round the mountain again) we may find that it is because sin is judged there.
We have to make sure we distinguish between sin and the sinful nature which is the consequence of sin. Sin is a moral problem, and can only be effectively dealt with by forgiveness. The cross demonstrates God's total committment to forgiveness, in the face of the ultimate provocation, and so it is a powerful icon of forgiveness, but God does not forgive us because of the cross, rather Jesus goes to the cross because God has already forgiven us.
Sin is, indeed, judged on the cross, but not in the sense that you mean, I suspect. God declares his mind on sin by showing that, because of His forgiveness, there are no lengths to which He will not go to reescue us from the consequences of that sin. He doesn't punish sin, he destroys it, by undercutting the only power it has, that of preventing God's creation from realising the purpose that He has for it.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
The problem here, JJ, is that Romans 3: 26 makes it clear that God did care about being justified in his actions.
Perhaps I phrased it poorly. Of course, God wants us to understand how He deals with the problem of evil. That is not, to my mind, the same as saying that God is bound by any external principle such as "justice", as defined by His creatures. He has mercy on those upon whom He will have mercy. I just happen to think that that is all of us.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Romans 5: 9 - while the verse itself does not attribute 'the wrath' to God, the context of verse 10 returns to the theme of enemies being reconciled. While it may be grammatically possible it is strethching the context beyond breaking point to demand that wrath is being used in an abstract way.
I would have thought the context reinforced my exegesis. The only enemy needing reconciliation is us, humankind. God is not our enemy, we are His. Therefore we are the ones perpetuating the conflict. It isn't God who has to change; we are the ones who have to change, or rather, to have change effected on us. That does rather suggest that the wrath is ours (since it needs to cease, which is to say, to change) rather than His. Which is Girard's point, ISTM.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
There is no moral problem to acquitting the guilty if the acts that made them guilty in the first place are unmade. This, istm, is the meaning of the Romans 3:25/26 passage.
I'd like you to explain further how this 'unmaking' works.
For a start PSA has dealt with sin already, this idea of unmaking acts (and their consequences) can clearly have no basis in this life. If I hit my sister then PSA tells me that my sin has been dealt with already on the cross and that it will one day be 'unmade'. ISTM that CV pushes everything forward to the 'one day it will all be unmade'.
Also I don't see how this 'unmaking' differs from making it as if the evil deed never happened. The end of Revelation seems bring us back to Eden but with the cost of that restoration still present. The heavenly city is not just a return it is somehow better since it has been redeemed. Now what I don't see is that if 'unmaking' even removes our memory of sins then why do we need a lamb in heaven? Or put it this way, if the cross and resurrection is only about 'unmaking' then how do we know that we won't sin again in the new heaven and new earth?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Romans 5: 9 - while the verse itself does not attribute 'the wrath' to God, the context of verse 10 returns to the theme of enemies being reconciled. While it may be grammatically possible it is strethching the context beyond breaking point to demand that wrath is being used in an abstract way.
I would have thought the context reinforced my exegesis. The only enemy needing reconciliation is us, humankind. God is not our enemy, we are His. Therefore we are the ones perpetuating the conflict. It isn't God who has to change; we are the ones who have to change, or rather, to have change effected on us. That does rather suggest that the wrath is ours (since it needs to cease, which is to say, to change) rather than His. Which is Girard's point, ISTM.
Only if we agree with your suggestion that we can be God's enemies without him being our enemy. I don't think you've demonstrated this so far, merely asserted it.
I find it hard to see how you can handle the cleansing of the temple by Jesus in a way that does not attribute righteous anger.
[ 06. August 2007, 16:20: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Welcome back, John. If I could just re-emphasise that I don't see PSA as justifying violence, nor am I accusing those who hold the view of being well disposed towards violence - I think that there are other things at work here independant of the atonement model. But I do think that the heart of PSA is a violent and retributive worldview, which, in fact, is at odds with the pacific and restorative worldview which is, in practice, held by the vast majority of its proponents. It's this cognitive dissonance between the practice and the theory which I find so odd.
But societies that believe PSA tend to be more violent than those that don't.
Anselm was writing at a time when the church had already begun to practice violence against heretics.
PSA has links with Christian/European imperialism, colonialism and slavery.
The USA believes in PSA more than any other country. It also executes more prisoners than most other countries and fights more wars than most.
Penal substitution was adopted at a time when Christians stopped beng pacifists and adopted pagan notions of a ‘Just War’.
The notion of an innocent victim is bad news for women who have been abused by husbands, for blacks living under apartheid.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But societies that believe PSA tend to be more violent than those that don't.
So you've got lots of evidence for that have you?
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Anselm was writing at a time when the church had already begun to practice violence against heretics.
Sadly true but Anselm was at least 600 years after that so you'd have to work hard to demonstrate a direct connection.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
PSA has links with Christian/European imperialism, colonialism and slavery.
What on earth are you talking about? Not only is that not true but I don't see how you could demonstrate it either. Christianity has had links with imperialism, colonialism and slavery ... let's ditch Christ then?
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The USA believes in PSA more than any other country. It also executes more prisoners than most other countries and fights more wars than most.
This gets worse and worse. I read in the paper this weekend about public hangings in Iran ... I don't think that was motivated by PSA. If you've got a thing about Americans then have it out somewhere else.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Penal substitution was adopted at a time when Christians stopped beng pacifists and adopted pagan notions of a ‘Just War’.
Have you read this thread? PSA was never 'adopted'. (I must have missed that lecture on the council of PSA in whatever AD. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) Exactly when and how it arose has been debated on this thread. There is no way you can justify your claim.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The notion of an innocent victim is bad news for women who have been abused by husbands, for blacks living under apartheid.
Again, please read the thread and see what others have said about the notion of the 'innocent victim'.
All in all, Leo I think you have revealed your hand as to why you reject PSA - and it has little to do with reality. Others have been genuinely enaging with some valid issues here, but I don't think that unsubstantiated generalisations and guilt by association helps this discussion at all. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
Johnny welcome back.
I think we can agree that the idea of God turning aside wrath in there in Romans. If that is all one means by propitiation, then yes God removed wrath. The argument is over how God did that.
The fact is, Paul does not say how in Romans 3. What he does say is what the problem is, and how God will solve it. God turns away wrath and krisis by as you say "righteousing" us through Christ's death. How exactly that works is not stated by Paul here. But it is clear that it is not through wrath or krisis or the way of just deserts. Indeed Paul's whole argument here is a way to escape from our just deserts. So he proposes a way for God to "righteous" us that is "apart from law".
What is also significant is that the heart of this way, Paul argues, has to do with a "new creation". PSA in itself focuses solely on our justification done through legal aquital (averting punishment) and says nothing about sanctification. But the word Paul uses as you have noted means justice/righteousness. The idea of justification and sanctification are in Paul's thought-world one in the same. We are justified (a positional change of identity adopted out of death and into God's sonship) by the sanctifying process of new birth.
How does Christ's death sanctify and rebirth us? We can see that the process involves substitutionary atonement in the sense that Christ died for our sins, became a curse for us, even "became sin". I think this is indisputable if we are going to take Scripture at its word. However the inference that this "for us" happens through some kind of demand for punishment in order to fulfill a legal requirement is simply not in the text anywhere. In fact there is no direct explanation of how this vicarious death works in Scripture (which ought to tell is something). The best we can do is try to pace it together from the clues we have in Scripture. From those clues in Paul and Isaiah what I see emerge quite strongly is that the cross is not something that appears as just in our eyes (the argument of PSA) but that it is a "scandal" and "foolishness" to us. This stumbling-block-ness of the cross needs to be taken into account. Any theory that is too neat and reasonable is suspect.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Welcome back, John. If I could just re-emphasise that I don't see PSA as justifying violence, nor am I accusing those who hold the view of being well disposed towards violence - I think that there are other things at work here independant of the atonement model. But I do think that the heart of PSA is a violent and retributive worldview, which, in fact, is at odds with the pacific and restorative worldview which is, in practice, held by the vast majority of its proponents. It's this cognitive dissonance between the practice and the theory which I find so odd.
But societies that believe PSA tend to be more violent than those that don't.
Anselm was writing at a time when the church had already begun to practice violence against heretics.
PSA has links with Christian/European imperialism, colonialism and slavery.
The USA believes in PSA more than any other country. It also executes more prisoners than most other countries and fights more wars than most.
Penal substitution was adopted at a time when Christians stopped beng pacifists and adopted pagan notions of a ‘Just War’.
The notion of an innocent victim is bad news for women who have been abused by husbands, for blacks living under apartheid.
While one could quibble with the specific examples here (for instance Anselm did not teach PSA), I do think there is a clear connection with a post-Constantinian mindset and PSA thinking. In the early church where the theme of CV was dominant the church saw itself as embattled and so the image of salvation as liberation from the oppression of a sinful world made sense. As the church became associated with political and military power, with legal authority, it makes sense that sin is seen in these terms and so the PSA mindset makes sense here: here capital punishment is no longer something done by oppressive and unjust pagans, it is something the church sanctions and calls for. That was the shape of the church for hundreds of years and so those assumptions die hard.
So I would say that PSA does not lead to violence, rather it found fertile ground in a world that ruled by might and force.
There are some PSAers who do not condone capital punishment and state sanctioned killing. They would argue that Christ's death puts an end to capital punishment.
[ 06. August 2007, 19:49: Message edited by: sharktacos ]
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
There is no moral problem to acquitting the guilty if the acts that made them guilty in the first place are unmade. This, istm, is the meaning of the Romans 3:25/26 passage.
I'd like you to explain further how this 'unmaking' works.
For a start PSA has dealt with sin already, this idea of unmaking acts (and their consequences) can clearly have no basis in this life. If I hit my sister then PSA tells me that my sin has been dealt with already on the cross and that it will one day be 'unmade'. ISTM that CV pushes everything forward to the 'one day it will all be unmade'.
Also I don't see how this 'unmaking' differs from making it as if the evil deed never happened. The end of Revelation seems bring us back to Eden but with the cost of that restoration still present. The heavenly city is not just a return it is somehow better since it has been redeemed. Now what I don't see is that if 'unmaking' even removes our memory of sins then why do we need a lamb in heaven? Or put it this way, if the cross and resurrection is only about 'unmaking' then how do we know that we won't sin again in the new heaven and new earth?
I think that you are drawing unnecessary distinctions here, or at least non-inherent distinctions. CV does not have to deal with the problem of my guilt now, because, under its schema, that guilt has already been dealt with by the grace of forgiveness. Because PSA, in its usual manifestations (I exclude Numpty's more subtle understanding from this) depends on the cross as an enabling act for forgiveness, it must include within it an explict mechanism for which CV has no need.
But the truth is that both (implicitly) CV and (explicitly) CV have consistent, and, indeed, largely identical mechanisms for dealing with sin now (forgiveness and repentance) and for dealing with sin ultimately (the new creation fulfilled at the eschaton). Both stress the need for regeneration, both say that we can taste the Kingdom now, but both accept that it is only at the end of time that we can enjoy its fulness.
Similarly, I don't think that it is necessarily true that to have the consequences of sin unmade is the same as saying that the sin, in effect, never happened. It is the negative effects of that sin, rather than the memory of it, that is undone. And, of course, the consequences of that sin (the price, or wages, if you like) have been bourne by God in Christ; even His resurrected body still bore the scars of the cross.
And, as for what is to stop us sinning in the new creation under CV, I would ask the same question about PSA. The criticism of the one is equally a criticism of the other, because both look towards a time when we will still exist as rational, if spiritual, beings, and yet sin will be no more.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
What is also significant is that the heart of this way, Paul argues, has to do with a "new creation". PSA in itself focuses solely on our justification done through legal aquital (averting punishment) and says nothing about sanctification. But the word Paul uses as you have noted means justice/righteousness. The idea of justification and sanctification are in Paul's thought-world one in the same. We are justified (a positional change of identity adopted out of death and into God's sonship) by the sanctifying process of new birth.
Hi backatcha (feeble attempt at cross-cultural communication ).
Sure thing, although PSA does not claim to exclude new creation et al, it claims to complement them.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
How does Christ's death sanctify and rebirth us?... From those clues in Paul and Isaiah what I see emerge quite strongly is that the cross is not something that appears as just in our eyes (the argument of PSA) but that it is a "scandal" and "foolishness" to us. This stumbling-block-ness of the cross needs to be taken into account. Any theory that is too neat and reasonable is suspect.
Ummh. Doesn't this argument cut both ways? I have heard many PSAers use this response to those who claim that retributive justice is a 'stumbling block' to those who want to believe!
Also, it is a somewhat circular argument to reject an atonement model on the basis that it is too neat and reasonable. I agree that the atonement is a 'mystery' but I don't see how that means we need to go for the model with the most blanks.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Romans 5: 9 - while the verse itself does not attribute 'the wrath' to God, the context of verse 10 returns to the theme of enemies being reconciled. While it may be grammatically possible it is strethching the context beyond breaking point to demand that wrath is being used in an abstract way.
I would have thought the context reinforced my exegesis. The only enemy needing reconciliation is us, humankind. God is not our enemy, we are His. Therefore we are the ones perpetuating the conflict. It isn't God who has to change; we are the ones who have to change, or rather, to have change effected on us. That does rather suggest that the wrath is ours (since it needs to cease, which is to say, to change) rather than His. Which is Girard's point, ISTM.
Only if we agree with your suggestion that we can be God's enemies without him being our enemy. I don't think you've demonstrated this so far, merely asserted it.
OK, I know it's difficult to prove a negative, but passages such as Psalm 139, and especially v11, or 2Tim 2:13 do suggest that God's committment to us is independant of our attitude, whilst Isaiah 59:2 states that our sins separate us from God, but not that they separate God from us.
I really don't see the problem you have with understanding asymmetrical relationships of this type. If you aren't keen on the analogies I have used so far, think of a blind person. The are, in some metaphorical sense, separated from those whom they cannot see, because they may be unaware of their existance. But a sighted person is able to see the blind person. Now I'm just using this as a type of asymmetric relationship, so one can take the analogy too far, but in a sense we are blind, and cannot see God, but that doesn't mean he can't see us. If we are healed of our blindness, then a fuller relationship between us and God can be experienced, with no change on God's part.
Please note, this is a bit of a crass analogy, and shouldn't be taken to imply that the relationships of people who are physically blind are any less full than those of their sighted neighbours.
quote:
I find it hard to see how you can handle the cleansing of the temple by Jesus in a way that does not attribute righteous anger.
Well I think it's a bit of a jump between scaring the horses (or, in this case, the sheep and the doves) and engaging in a bit of energetic furniture rearrangement, and the wrath of God as we have been discussing it here. But the real question is not so much whether God is angry at sin, for clearly He is, but whether that anger is directed at sinners, and, if so, how God expresses that anger.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Similarly, I don't think that it is necessarily true that to have the consequences of sin unmade is the same as saying that the sin, in effect, never happened. It is the negative effects of that sin, rather than the memory of it, that is undone. And, of course, the consequences of that sin (the price, or wages, if you like) have been bourne by God in Christ; even His resurrected body still bore the scars of the cross.
And, as for what is to stop us sinning in the new creation under CV, I would ask the same question about PSA. The criticism of the one is equally a criticism of the other, because both look towards a time when we will still exist as rational, if spiritual, beings, and yet sin will be no more.
Thanks. Although I didn't explain myself very well you are bringing out the issues that I struggle with.
You are right in that both CV and PSA have to answer the issue of potential sin in the future. I was thinking about something along these lines ...
Suppose a husband is unfaithful to his wife, he confesses and she forgives him. That forgiveness is not a one off event but a lifelong action of the will. He will regularly feel guilt pangs, she will frequently feel the terrible pain of betrayal. If the effects are removed without the memory being removed (I don't see how that is possible) then this pain will continue into the new heaven and new earth. I think that any atonement model has to be able to put the past 'behind us' once and for all but in a way that does not act as if it never happened.
If God only 'unmakes' us then why are we not trapped in groundhog day? (Except without the consciousness that we are trapped!)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Sorry about the cross-posting, but I need to go out soon, so I'll just to continue.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
OK, I know it's difficult to prove a negative, but passages such as Psalm 139, and especially v11, or 2Tim 2:13 do suggest that God's committment to us is independant of our attitude, whilst Isaiah 59:2 states that our sins separate us from God, but not that they separate God from us.
I totally agree with you about God's commitment to us being independent of our attitude. However, all that means is that God is not our enemy in the same way that we are his enemy.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well I think it's a bit of a jump between scaring the horses (or, in this case, the sheep and the doves) and engaging in a bit of energetic furniture rearrangement, and the wrath of God as we have been discussing it here. But the real question is not so much whether God is angry at sin, for clearly He is, but whether that anger is directed at sinners, and, if so, how God expresses that anger.
True, but my point is that Jesus (by definition of being a person) directed his anger at the sinners rather than the sin.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
I totally agree with you about God's commitment to us being independent of our attitude. However, all that means is that God is not our enemy in the same way that we are his enemy.
Or merely, that we are God's enemy, but he is not our enemy. You obviously don't like this option, but would you care to develop why you think God is our enemy in some different way to that in which we are His enemy, if, indeed, that is what you think?
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Actually, on reflection, I suspect the language I've used is a bit unhelpful. For enemy, read "in need of being reconciled with", as in, "we are in need of being reconciled with God, but He is not in need of being reconciled with us". the word "enemy" carries waay to much baggage!
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Similarly, I don't think that it is necessarily true that to have the consequences of sin unmade is the same as saying that the sin, in effect, never happened. It is the negative effects of that sin, rather than the memory of it, that is undone. And, of course, the consequences of that sin (the price, or wages, if you like) have been bourne by God in Christ; even His resurrected body still bore the scars of the cross.
And, as for what is to stop us sinning in the new creation under CV, I would ask the same question about PSA. The criticism of the one is equally a criticism of the other, because both look towards a time when we will still exist as rational, if spiritual, beings, and yet sin will be no more.
Thanks. Although I didn't explain myself very well you are bringing out the issues that I struggle with.
You are right in that both CV and PSA have to answer the issue of potential sin in the future. I was thinking about something along these lines ...
Suppose a husband is unfaithful to his wife, he confesses and she forgives him. That forgiveness is not a one off event but a lifelong action of the will. He will regularly feel guilt pangs, she will frequently feel the terrible pain of betrayal. If the effects are removed without the memory being removed (I don't see how that is possible) then this pain will continue into the new heaven and new earth. I think that any atonement model has to be able to put the past 'behind us' once and for all but in a way that does not act as if it never happened.
If God only 'unmakes' us then why are we not trapped in groundhog day? (Except without the consciousness that we are trapped!)
Well, I suppose the answer is that God re-creates us, not merely unmakes the effects of sin. The unmaking thing is really germane to the problem of how the cross satisfies God's justice and deals with sin. It isn't the totality of CV, which also streses regeneration and union with Christ, as does PSA. In the end, I suspect that the answer to the question that you pose lies in no particular model of the atonement, but rather hidden in faith within the mystery of God.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
would you care to develop why you think God is our enemy in some different way to that in which we are His enemy, if, indeed, that is what you think?
Okay, let's not talk of enemies. But carrying on the example of the unfaithful husband ...
Reconciliation between the two involves changing both even though one side was completely guiltless. If the wife was not hurt by the infidelity we would question her love for her husband in the first place. Is that not what the bible means by a 'jealous love'? Even if she is completely innocent and forgives and loves her husband equally afterwards, the hurt (etc.) on her side of the relationship needs to be dealt with too.
The above analogy is an example where sin has in some sense made both parties 'enemies' of each other but not in an asymmetrical way.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
