Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

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. ) 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.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Tis thread is supposed to be about the classic, Christus Victor theiry.

---

So why does your last post consist entirely of an attack on PSA then?

Let's discuss CV - it seems pretty legitimate to me to compare it with other atonement models. And since this thread is mostly about removing PSA entirely and replacing it with CV as the dominant metaphor it seems obvious that the argument is going to be mainly about why Cv can replace PSA ... or CV vs. PSA.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Sure thing, although PSA does not claim to exclude new creation et al, it claims to complement them.

---

quote:

---

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!

---

quote:

---

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.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Tis thread is supposed to be about the classic, Christus Victor theiry.

---

So why does your last post consist entirely of an attack on PSA then?

Let's discuss CV - it seems pretty legitimate to me to compare it with other atonement models. And since this thread is mostly about removing PSA entirely and replacing it with CV as the dominant metaphor it seems obvious that the argument is going to be mainly about why Cv can replace PSA ... or CV vs. PSA.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Because much of this thread has been derailed by PSA.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
How can a criticism of PSA do anything other than encourage further discussion of PSA?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
the goal is to arrive a biblical theology. So we cannot simply say "Hey look my theory is also foolish", rather we need to examine exactly what Paul was talking about and why he said the cross was a scandal and foolishness.

---

Well put... it was what I was trying to say.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
I am saying we need to listen to what Paul is saying. He goes on to talk about how in this foolishness is the wisdom of God. So it is not nonsensical, but it is the kind of upsidedown logic of the kingdom that appears first to be counter intuitive. Die to live, the greatest are the least, to lead you must serve, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
PSA does not fit into that line of thinking. It fits with a very basic human idea of payback justice. The part that people are appauled by is not the illogic of it, but its profound injustice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
Specifically the idea that punishing the innocent in place of the guilty would be just, when in fact it would be a grave injustice. If a leader executed innocent people because of the crimes of others no one would say "look how seriously they take sin" they would gasp at how tyranical that ruler is.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

"Die to live, the greatest are the least, to lead you must serve, etc."... showing grace to the guilty?

---

quote:

---

Indeed Paul says that it is foolishness to people in different ways - to the Jews in that they look for miracles and the Greeks in their pursuit of wisdom.

In Galatians 3 Paul picks up on the way Jews viewed people executed 'on a tree'.

---

quote:

---

Whatever else we draw out from it, surely Paul is saying that Jews found the crucifixion 'foolishness' precisely because innocent kings don't get executed for treason the cross.

---

quote:

---

There is a counter-intuitive act happening of an innocent man receiving the punishment due for someone who is guilty.

---

quote:

---

Why aren't we equally appalled by the profound injustice of grace and mercy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
Specifically the idea that punishing the innocent in place of the guilty would be just, when in fact it would be a grave injustice. If a leader executed innocent people because of the crimes of others no one would say "look how seriously they take sin" they would gasp at how tyranical that ruler is.

Yet again ... No one on this thread has described PSA like that. In Christ our sin is punished.

---

quote:

---

Otherwise the arguments of Romans 5 and Hebrews 2 seem rather tortuous and unnecessary. The point seems to be that it is our sinful humanity that is being punished in Christ. Indeed Hebrews 2 seems to deliberately combine CV with PSA in verses 14-18.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
There is a very good study on this by the historian Martin Hengel called "Crucifixion". He looks at Jewish and Greek writing at the time on crucifixion as well as critique of primitive Christianity by Greeks and Jews. From that he brings insight into what Paul is talking about. The idea of being "accursed" is of central importance. I would highly recommend it.

---

I've read his trilogy The Cross of the Son of God which includes The Son of God and The Atonement as well. That is where I got my ideas about 'curse' from. I read it because It was recommended by Don Carson. Something tells me, call it a hunch , that he wouldn't recommend something that undermined PSA.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
Here is were we part. Historically this is not how they would have seen it. It was not a picture of state justice, it was more like the holocaust. It was about oppression and terrible injustice. It was a curse. The shock for them was the idea that God would suffer and be shamed like that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
I would suggest that rather than thinking of this in legal terms that are no where in Scripture we use the way that Scripture uses to understand it. A good place here is Isaiah 53. There is no other chapter that is quoted so much in the NT then this one so it would seem a good source. In Isaiah 53 what is said over and over is that this is not just. It is a grave injustice that God uses to bring about justice somehow...The death of Jesus was in everyone's eyes not just, it was a tragedy, a horror. But God brought about salvation through it. God did that by entering into the horror of sin and overcoming it. That is the scandal - God enters our horror.

---

Right. Let's get this straight. You think Isaiah 53 teaches that God uses an injustice to bring about his justice. But your problem with PSA is that it is an injustice used by God to bring about his purposes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
We can go over this, but you will need to be more specific.

---

My reference to Romans 5 and Hebrews 2 was to do with the mechanics of CV. Please note Leo and Freddy - this is solely about CV. It is essential (according to the NT) that Jesus shares our flesh for the atonement to 'work'. Right at the beginning of this thread (2nd post) Karl explains CV as Christ being a champion who fights for us against sin and evil. Why does Jesus have to be fully human to do this? In Greek mythology the sons of gods are champions precisely because they are half god and half man, but are not fully human.

Why does Jesus have to be fully human in order to fight for us? After all, Jesus himself said that a shepherd can lay down his life for his sheep.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
I could even see agreeing with Christ taking on our punishment, but only if we say simultaneously that he in the same way and at the same time took our pain, suffering, and injustice too. This is precisely what Isa 53 says.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Freddy and I discussed Luke 23 at some length. Whether or not Luke intends us to see PSA there is a different matter, however, he does go out of his way to depict Jesus as an innocent man receiving a punishment that he does not deserve. I don't disagree with you about the extra shame of Roman oppression but I think it is rather weak to appeal to 'historically the Jews would have thought' when all I have to do is to turn to one of the gospels.

---

quote:

---

Right. Let's get this straight. You think Isaiah 53 teaches that God uses an injustice to bring about his justice. But your problem with PSA is that it is an injustice used by God to bring about his purposes.

---

quote:

---

I could even see agreeing with Christ taking on our punishment, but only if we say simultaneously that he in the same way and at the same time took our pain, suffering, and injustice too. This is precisely what Isa 53 says.

I completely agree with your above statement, so don't see what the problem is.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:

quote:

---

Right. Let's get this straight. You think Isaiah 53 teaches that God uses an injustice to bring about his justice. But your problem with PSA is that it is an injustice used by God to bring about his purposes.

---

That's clever. But not what I am saying. The Bible claims that the cross is an injustice. PSA says that it was the requirement of justice. That's the opposite.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:

quote:

---

Right. Let's get this straight. You think Isaiah 53 teaches that God uses an injustice to bring about his justice. But your problem with PSA is that it is an injustice used by God to bring about his purposes.

---

That's clever. But not what I am saying. The Bible claims that the cross is an injustice. PSA says that it was the requirement of justice. That's the opposite.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Well put. I would also chime in by noting the difference between an injustice God uses and an injustice God causes.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:

quote:

---

Right. Let's get this straight. You think Isaiah 53 teaches that God uses an injustice to bring about his justice. But your problem with PSA is that it is an injustice used by God to bring about his purposes.

---

That's clever. But not what I am saying. The Bible claims that the cross is an injustice. PSA says that it was the requirement of justice. That's the opposite.

---

Okay, I think we are getting somewhere here. I'm not trying to be clever - this strikes at the heart of all atonement models. AFAIK everyone agrees that the cross is an injustice, the question (put differently by JJ, Freddy and infinite_monkey) is how God brings his purposes about through it.

According to 1 Peter 2 the cross was an injustice, but the way Jesus was able to face it was by trusting himself to God's justice (verse 23).

Hence a lot of this is to do with how we view God's sovereignty. The scriptures teach (e.g. Ephesians 1) that the cross was always part of God's plan from the beginning. Therefore any atonement model has to come up with an explanation of how God can use an injustice to bring about his purpose of salvation. PSA has an answer to that. I realise that you guys don't like it, but PSA is precisely an explanation of how the cross can be an injustice and still used by God.


BTW - Where is an answer to my question about CV? (Why does our champion have to be fully human?) Where are all the people complaining about this thread not being about CV? I gave you a chance to talk about CV and all I get are four replies about PSA!

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Why does Jesus have to be fully human in order to fight for us?

---

Because the "power of darkness" is a problem for humans, not for God. Demons could not even begin to approach God to attack Him. But they could approach and attack Jesus, and He could respond to them, overcome them, and take away their power.

From the moment the fall took place, God foresaw that He would have to come down in human form to encounter and overcome the power of hell among people on earth.

You would think that He could snap His fingers and destroy it completely if He chose - and He could have done that.

But this would have not have recognized what evil essentially is, and it would have gone against the principle of leaving humanity in freedom.

It was therefore more in accord with His love to provide means for humans to overcome evil as if of themselves. He did this by coming into the world as a human, doing things to provide those means, and fighting against the hells even to the point of giving His life. This way He restored the spiritual order, and set people free to follow Him or not according to their own free will.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                       

quote:

---

Hence a lot of this is to do with how we view God's sovereignty. The scriptures teach (e.g. Ephesians 1) that the cross was always part of God's plan from the beginning. Therefore any atonement model has to come up with an explanation of how God can use an injustice to bring about his purpose of salvation. PSA has an answer to that. I realise that you guys don't like it, but PSA is precisely an explanation of how the cross can be an injustice and still used by God.

---

quote:

---

BTW - Where is an answer to my question about CV? (Why does our champion have to be fully human?) Where are all the people complaining about this thread not being about CV? I gave you a chance to talk about CV and all I get are four replies about PSA!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Our champion has to be fully human, or he's not our champion. If he's not human, then humanity is not taken into the Godhead at the Ascension. A non-human champion could conceivably defeat sin for us, but would not enable theosis; this is getting a bit beyond the cross itself, but you need to take a holistic view. This is the package - God the Son becomes man, uniting the estranged human and divine natures, defeats evil in one person with two combined natures, and then returns to heaven with His humanity intact. It's by identifying ourselves with His humanity rather than our own that we become partakers of the victory and the return to heaven - hence all this dying to self and living to Christ, counting ourselves dead to sin and alive to Christ, being baptised into Him, being His body and all the other metaphors based on this concept.

It's not so much CV which requires the humanity of Christ (although it does) as the entire package of which CV is a part.

Incidently, does this also answer the "I don't see how CV works?" questions? It doesn't try to "work" in and of itself - it works as a stage in the Incarnation which leads to the possibility of our theosis.

---

Karl, this is superb! Absolutely brilliant!!

--------------------
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)

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
A non-human champion could conceivably defeat sin for us, but would not enable theosis; this is getting a bit beyond the cross itself, but you need to take a holistic view. This is the package - God the Son becomes man, uniting the estranged human and divine natures, defeats evil in one person with two combined natures, and then returns to heaven with His humanity intact. It's by identifying ourselves with His humanity rather than our own that we become partakers of the victory and the return to heaven - hence all this dying to self and living to Christ, counting ourselves dead to sin and alive to Christ, being baptised into Him, being His body and all the other metaphors based on this concept.

---

Karl, this is superb! Absolutely brilliant!!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's by identifying ourselves with His humanity rather than our own that we become partakers of the victory and the return to heaven - hence all this dying to self and living to Christ, counting ourselves dead to sin and alive to Christ, being baptised into Him, being His body and all the other metaphors based on this concept.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
It was therefore more in accord with His love to provide means for humans to overcome evil as if of themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, the classic answer is "What He does not assume, He cannot redeem!"

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
It was therefore more in accord with His love to provide means for humans to overcome evil as if of themselves.

---

You give the game away here Freddy. If you don't know an answer just say so.

---

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                          

quote:

---

We've established that orthodox Christianity affirms that it was essential for Jesus to be fully human in order to save humanity. Why, in the CV model, was that necessary?

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

Right, let's start again. We've established that orthodox Christianity affirms that it was essential for Jesus to be fully human in order to save humanity. Why, in the CV model, was that necessary?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:


[QUOTE] PSA does not fit into that line of thinking. It fits with a very basic human idea of payback justice. The part that people are appauled by is not the illogic of it, but its profound injustice. Specifically the idea that punishing the innocent in place of the guilty would be just, when in fact it would be a grave injustice. If a leader executed innocent people because of the crimes of others no one would say "look how seriously they take sin" they would gasp at how tyranical that ruler is.

---

quote:

---

I don't think that is at all what the NT is saying. Rather it is more like a firefighter who rushes into a burning building to save people. Christ does not demand appeasement, he comes as a servant and acts in humility giving his life for the outcast and the forsaken. God is humiliated, weak, woundable, forsaken, cursed, killed. God was "afflicted" and "taken away by oppression and injustice" Isaiah tells us. That was the scandal that Paul was refering to historically

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

This is straw man territory. You are criticising a travesty of what people who live PSA actually believe.

---

quote:

---

The fact though is that justice, by definition, though you continually refuse to acknowledge it, contains a payback or retributive aspect.

---

quote:

---

It is not all about that but wrong cannot be addressed without a penal element and spare me the diatribe on forgiveness..we've been through that.

---

quote:

---

In terms of the cross, Christ volunteered to take on the punishment for our sins. have a squiz at Is 53:4,5 "The chastening of our well-being fell upon him...He bore our griefs and carried our sorrows.."

---

quote:

---

Christ does never demand appeasement. It is the Father's holiness that cannot abide sin.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
We've established that orthodox Christianity affirms that it was essential for Jesus to be fully human in order to save humanity. Why, in the CV model, was that necessary?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:

quote:

---

We've established that orthodox Christianity affirms that it was essential for Jesus to be fully human in order to save humanity. Why, in the CV model, was that necessary?

---

recapitulation and theosis.

---

And what you think my next question is going to be?

...

...

... why does Jesus have to be fully human for recapitulation and theosis?

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
Another thing that CV brings to the table is that any model of substitutionary atonement including PSA, expressed in the best light focuses on salvation in individual and personal terms. While this is good, CV broadens this focus to a larger understanding of salvation and redemption of all creation including the systems, structures, and powers.

As long as this is not seen as an either/or but a both/and thing, I think that here CV gives us some gret insights into the depth of sin that a personal individual focus can miss.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, the classic answer is "What He does not assume, He cannot redeem!"

---

That certainly isn't an answer to my question, it is the considered answer to the question - did Jesus have to be fully human in order to save humanity? ... i.e. YES.

Right, let's start again. We've established that orthodox Christianity affirms that it was essential for Jesus to be fully human in order to save humanity. Why, in the CV model, was that necessary?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, the classic answer is "What He does not assume, He cannot redeem!"

---

That certainly isn't an answer to my question, it is the considered answer to the question - did Jesus have to be fully human in order to save humanity? ... i.e. YES.

Right, let's start again. We've established that orthodox Christianity affirms that it was essential for Jesus to be fully human in order to save humanity. Why, in the CV model, was that necessary?

---

OK, I'm clearly not understanding the question. Clearly, if Jesus had to be fully human in order to save humanity, as you accept, and if CV is the mechanism by which that salvation is enabled, then it follows that, in order for CV to accomplish its purpose, Christ would have to be fully human (and, of course, fully divine). It may not be the answer you want, (not sure what that answer is) but it is no less valid. I really don't get the distinction you are driving at. It's not as if PSA doesn't pose the same questions and give the same answers.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
Another thing that CV brings to the table is that any model of substitutionary atonement including PSA, expressed in the best light focuses on salvation in individual and personal terms. While this is good, CV broadens this focus to a larger understanding of salvation and redemption of all creation including the systems, structures, and powers.

As long as this is not seen as an either/or but a both/and thing, I think that here CV gives us some gret insights into the depth of sin that a personal individual focus can miss.

---

I understand the bit about 'personal' terms (which I think is essential). However, I don't see how PSA can ever be accussed of being a model that is individualistic. Jesus died once for all of us. I may say that he died for me but that has to be a subset of he died for us all ... how can it not be corporate if we are saved 'in him'?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, the classic answer is "What He does not assume, He cannot redeem!"

---

That certainly isn't an answer to my question, it is the considered answer to the question - did Jesus have to be fully human in order to save humanity? ... i.e. YES.

Right, let's start again. We've established that orthodox Christianity affirms that it was essential for Jesus to be fully human in order to save humanity. Why, in the CV model, was that necessary?

---

OK, I'm clearly not understanding the question. Clearly, if Jesus had to be fully human in order to save humanity, as you accept, and if CV is the mechanism by which that salvation is enabled, then it follows that, in order for CV to accomplish its purpose, Christ would have to be fully human (and, of course, fully divine). It may not be the answer you want, (not sure what that answer is) but it is no less valid. I really don't get the distinction you are driving at. It's not as if PSA doesn't pose the same questions and give the same answers.

---

JJ, I think that Johnny is just saying that your answer "What He does not assume, He cannot redeem!" is an assertion, not an answer - ie. "He had to be fully human because He had to be fully human."

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I really don't get the distinction you are driving at. It's not as if PSA doesn't pose the same questions and give the same answers.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
OK, if you don't do individualistic, try anthropocentric. PSA is about the human condition, our sin, our salvation, which, in itself is all right and proper. CV covers that same ground, but also addresses structural and cosmic concerns. It addresses, as a matter of centrality, not only the sin done by us, but also the sin done to us, and, indeed, the effect of sin on the whole of the cosmic order. This cosmic dimension seems more like an add-on to PSA, a sort of "Oh, and by the way...". CV, rather, starts from the cosmic reordering of the universe, and then works outwards from that towards the consequences of that re-ordering for the individual.

---

Great - I like that.

... mind you, that is why I want CV + PSA. (So that the personal aspect is emphasises too!)

Posted                       

quote:

---

The fact though is that justice, by definition, though you continually refuse to acknowledge it, contains a payback or retributive aspect. It is not all about that but wrong cannot be addressed without a penal element and spare me the diatribe on forgiveness..we've been through that. In terms of the cross, Christ volunteered to take on the punishment for our sins. have a squiz at Is 53:4,5 "The chastening of our well-being fell upon him...He bore our griefs and carried our sorrows.."

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Steven Gerrard coming to play for us so that we win (we do sometimes without his help but that is not part of the analogy). But that would only work if SG was already a member of our team, otherwise it is not fair. Where is the equivalent 'bit' for CV?

---

How about the fact that he would have to be human to play football, since non-humans aren't allowed to play. Usually.

So in CV God had to take on a human form in order to overcome sin, because sin is a human characteristic that is meaningless outside of humanity. Hell could not attack God Himself, but it could, and would, attack His humanity - so He could defeat it.

You can't win without being a player.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
OK, if you don't do individualistic, try anthropocentric. PSA is about the human condition, our sin, our salvation, which, in itself is all right and proper. CV covers that same ground, but also addresses structural and cosmic concerns. It addresses, as a matter of centrality, not only the sin done by us, but also the sin done to us, and, indeed, the effect of sin on the whole of the cosmic order. This cosmic dimension seems more like an add-on to PSA, a sort of "Oh, and by the way...". CV, rather, starts from the cosmic reordering of the universe, and then works outwards from that towards the consequences of that re-ordering for the individual.

---

Great - I like that.

... mind you, that is why I want CV + PSA. (So that the personal aspect is emphasises too!)

---

You obviously missed the bit that said "CV covers the same ground", then

--------------------
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)

Posted                       

quote:

---

If Jesus is receiving the punishment for sinful humanity then, by definition, he must be fully human. (Otherwise, as we have said ad infinitum, it would be unjust.)

---

quote:

---

Equally, for Jesus to live a perfect life which can be credited to us, then he had to be fully human (and I would argue even have a sinful human nature, if not be a sinner) so that it really can become 'our righteousness'. (It is meaningless for Jesus to 'fulfil the law' unless he does it the hard way, the way we have to try to.)

---

quote:

---

I play for a church football team. In the past CV has been compared to (e.g.) Steven Gerrard coming to play for us so that we win (we do sometimes without his help but that is not part of the analogy). But that would only work if SG was already a member of our team, otherwise it is not fair. Where is the equivalent 'bit' for CV?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Surely, that is (part of) the equivalent bit of CV. Jesus is, indeed, already a member of our team, Humanity United! (reasonably priced strip available by request, somewhat tuneless beery anthem due for Christmas release!)

---

Yes, but that is just an analogy. My point is that, in order to work, an analogy has to explain something in reality. There has to be 'contact' points.

As Freddy's indicates the FA might be unhappy with aliens playing the beautiful game but I can't see what similar rules CV has to appeal to.

The 'Champion' metaphor only needs the idea of subsitute (fighting on our behalf) - he has to fight for us, but he doesn't have to be one of us. I'm not saying that we should ditch CV because of it (because it is only an analogy ), just pointing out weaknesses in CV too - I think it fails the test of being an 'umbrella' model.

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
As Freddy's indicates the FA might be unhappy with aliens playing the beautiful game but I can't see what similar rules CV has to appeal to.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

But that would only work if SG was already a member of our team, otherwise it is not fair. Where is the equivalent 'bit' for CV?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I've heard it preached by PSA oriented preachers - "Jesus was born just to die".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I often wondered why He bothered with the 30 years or so He spent here. He could have just appeared in human form on Palm Sunday to satisfy PSA, the way they explained it. That wouldn't work for CV.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's layers within layers.

---

So now Jesus is an ogre is he? That'll do donkey, that'll do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The Cross makes no sense without the Resurrection. The Resurrection makes no sense without the Ascension. The Ascension makes no sense without the Incarnation. Which is why Christmas is as important as Easter. Without Christmas, there is no Easter. Without Easter, Christmas loses some of its significance.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
He could have just appeared in human form on Palm Sunday to satisfy PSA, the way they explained it. That wouldn't work for CV.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

why does Jesus have to be fully human for recapitulation and theosis?

---

quote:

---

I understand the bit about 'personal' terms (which I think is essential). However, I don't see how PSA can ever be accussed of being a model that is individualistic.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:

quote:

---

This is straw man territory. You are criticising a travesty of what people who live PSA actually believe.

---

How so?

1) You say that justice demands retribution.
2)You propose that Christ was retributively punished instead of us.
3)It is in any legal system profoundly immoral to punish the innocent in place of the guilty.
4) Quod erat demonstrandum: PSA is rooted in a miscarriage of justice that can only be described as tyrannical.

.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

The fact though is that justice, by definition, though you continually refuse to acknowledge it, contains a payback or retributive aspect. It is not all about that but wrong cannot be addressed without a penal element and spare me the diatribe on forgiveness..we've been through that. In terms of the cross, Christ volunteered to take on the punishment for our sins. have a squiz at Is 53:4,5 "The chastening of our well-being fell upon him...He bore our griefs and carried our sorrows.."

---

Jamat, you have yet to give any backing to your assertions that "The Father's holiness cannot abide sin" (which I understand to be code meaning "God cannot accept into his presence sinners") and "Justice must have a retributive element"(emphasis mine). I just don't accept either of these two premises, and you have done nothing to demonstrate to me that they come from the Bible, rather than from personal opinion.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

I've never seen a working model that doesn't have a penal element.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

"Matthew 9:13
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.


Matthew 12:7
But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

Mark 12:33
And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.

Hebrews 10:6
In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

Psalm 40:6
Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

Psalm 51:16
For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.

Psalm 51:17
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Proverbs 21:3
To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.

Isaiah 1:11
To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

Isaiah 66:3
He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.

Jeremiah 6:20
To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me.

Jeremiah 7:22
For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
23But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.

Hosea 6:6
For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.


Micah 6:8
He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

---

What I see in the Bible is the usual mix in history even as played out today, there are still those who claim it is a God ordained right for them to kill others for one reason or another, which is a type of sacrifice. But Christ didn't teach this - he made it very clear that those who think this 'don't know which spirit they are of'.

The Jeremiah quote above is particularly interesting I think, he says that none of the sacrificial laws were given by God - was he wrong? He was closer to the time than we are now, but if he was right about the history many had forgotten it. If he was right, where did it come from?

I find it illogical to think the same God who was trying to fashion a nation under the moral guidelines of the commandments which specifically taught not to kill/murder would then command the genocide, the mass slaughter of all the men, women and children, of the Canaanites. It just doesn't make sense.

The most rational explanation I can come up with is that claims of God demanding murder are human constructs, (to justify getting land, for destroying other beliefs etc.). Ditto for requiring blood sacrifice.

Now, if one believes in a God who requires blood sacrifice as Aztecs did for example, Christ is the perfect answer to put a stop to such barbarity, as the final sacrifice. It's obvious that many Jews still thought blood sacrifice was necessary and related to Christ from that, there's nothing wrong in doing this, Christ came because God so loved all the world and is the perfect solution here as the substitution given to Abraham. But from this surely we must go on to Christ and His teaching about God? Christ taught the commandments, thou shalt not kill; Christ taught that God loved all regardless of whether they were sinners or righteous...; and we're instructed to love as Christ's God loves.

The Bible is first of all a history of a people and of that people's finding God and this includes when they got it wrong and the excuses they made, and Christ pointed out the differences when he argued with the teachers of the day who insisted their man-made laws took priority over the commandments - His gripe with them was that their teachings stopped people getting into heaven.

And now I'm beginning to ramble, so I'll stop


Myrrh

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
[QUOTE]
3)It is in any legal system profoundly immoral to punish the innocent in place of the guilty.


.

---

your comment under three really does QED your problem to me.
You are judging God's way of doing things by interposing human thinking and judgements on them then swearing black is white by denying that the scripture teaches a substitutionary death which is in fact the reason any of us can have a relationship with God.

---