|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Christus Victor
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The cross is about more than one idea and I think you state what it achieves very well. But it is meaningless without the 'Christ being punished as our sin substitute idea.'
This is simply not true. Jesus never says this. He made many statements about how He was saving humanity, but He didn't say this.
He was not punished as our substitute. He took on our burdens and overcame them for us.
What about.."The son of man came to give his life a ransom for many Matt 20:28.
Freddy your can read this quite reasonably as a prediction of penal substitution.
I reject your reading of Col 2 as a way of making it fit your preconceptions. To me the import is quite plain in that it fits with Paul's statement, "He that ascended is also he that descended." Christ marched into Hell's throneroom sinless and having been accepted as a substitute foe our sin and he legally disarmed Satan. Now those who are jstified by faith can appropriate what he did as a teral reality, not just a metaphor.
--------------------
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:
But is that a fair handling of the passage? The medical 'healing' is only referred to directly once and alluded to once. However, 'something happening for our transgressions' is littered throughout the chapter. Surely the text warrants (if anything) subsuming the medical metaphor into the trangressions one, and not the other way round?
I think to answer that properly I'd have to go into more detail. I'll try to get to that later when I have a bit more time.
{QUOTE]If you do not deny punishment then how can God bear our punishment without it being appeasement? [/QUOTE]
How about in the same way he "carries our sorrow" as Isa 53 also says?
"Surely our griefs he himself bore, and our sorrows he carried"
Also notice that when it says
"But he was pierced through for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities"
that it goes on to say if you keep reading that
"the chastening for our well-being fell upon him, and by his scourging we are healed."
So we have his pain and unjust punishment for the purpose of "our well being" and "healing" of our "iniquities" as well as for our "grief" and "sorrows".
I'm trying to find a way to understand that that takes all of this into account, and the idea of appeasing punishment just does not fit the big picture here. Its somehow that through taking on this injustice that the Servant heals us of our sin, sorrow, sickness, and affliction. That sounds crazy to me, but I also hear Isaiah saying over and over "Who has believed our message?" and "we thought this, but really it wasn't that way" and "he was despised, and we did not esteem him". As if to say (along with Paul) "this will sound crazy to you, and be a huge shock, but listen..."
--------------------
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 Johnny S:
[QB]
[QUOTE] If you have no idea how it 'works', how can you be so adamant that PSA is wrong? There is mystery here but you appear to be starting from your doctrine of God and then simply reading that into your view of the atonement. I would rather a sort of two-way feedback between what the bible teaches about God and about the atonement.
Precisely what we all do really. Start from our non-negotiables. Mine is that Christ substituted for my sin on the cross. I share it with millions of Christians world wide. It is in my view what Paul believed. I reject Sharktacos' reading of Romans 3:25 as a highly speculative linguistic argument that is a mere possible alternative reading. In the total weight of scripture, the evidence for Christ as a penal substitute is significant when the concept of sacrifice is considered. The issue earlier on in the thread was whether a sacrifice is 'punished'. I do not think it possible for one to avoid the obvious reading that it is a penal substitute however much one would like to think differently.
--------------------
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:
Christ marched into Hell's throneroom sinless and having been accepted as a substitute foe our sin and he legally disarmed Satan. Now those who are jstified by faith can appropriate what he did as a teral reality, not just a metaphor.
Jamat I think this a correct statement above. Where we disagree is the means to our salvation.
You say it was through appeasement, God was mad and needed to be appeased, so he punishes Jesus (or if you prefer, punishes himself) and is no longer mad.
I say that the means was through God setting us right by living our life (note the incarnation here) so that we could live in Christ.
Your model deals with wrath, but not with the source of the wrath, which is our sin.
My model deals directly with our inner sin, and with the source of wrath removed, the wrath problem is solved too.
Both take into account judgment and substitution.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
The issue earlier on in the thread was whether a sacrifice is 'punished'.
I would say that biblically the clear purpose of sacrifices is not punishment but purification, cleansing, sanctification. (Again note the medical model).
This reading is all over both the OT and the book of Hebrews.
"without blood there is no forgiveness"
why? Because it is through blood that we are cleansed. The entire verse reads
"In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be {b}cleansed with blood[/b], and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."
verse 23 continues:
"It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these."
If you read on you see he is continually taking about the sacrifices as purification, cleansing, sanctifying. We are "washed in the blood".
Is death in involved? Yes. But why? Not for appeasement, but for cleansing. The pure unblemished blood purifies and sanctifies.
Do I get why blood would cleanse? Not really honestly. But that is what it the Bible says the sacrifices were about and that this pointed to the reality in Christ that somehow his death can cleanse us of our sin.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What about.."The son of man came to give his life a ransom for many Matt 20:28.
Freddy your can read this quite reasonably as a prediction of penal substitution.
Yes, that passage has often been read that way. But the Old Testament notion of "ransom", as I have pointed out before, is quite different than simply the payment of a price. In the messianic prophecies it usually includes the idea of a redemption brought about by force:
quote:
Isaiah 35:4 Behold, your God will come with vengeance,
With the recompense of God;
He will come and save you.” ….
8 A highway shall be there, and a road,
And it shall be called the Highway of Holiness.
The unclean shall not pass over it….
But the redeemed shall walk there,
10 And the ransomed of the LORD shall return,
And come to Zion with singing,
Jeremiah 31:10 ‘ He who scattered Israel will gather him,
And keep him as a shepherd does his flock.’
11 For the LORD has redeemed Jacob,
And ransomed him from the hand of one stronger than he.
Isaiah 43:3 For I am the LORD your God, The Holy One of Israel, your Savior; I gave Egypt for your ransom, Ethiopia and Seba in your place.
Hosea 13:14 “ I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O Death, I will be your plagues! O Grave, I will be your destruction! Pity is hidden from My eyes.”
This is a more likely understanding of "ransom" than the idea of Christ being punished as our sin substitute.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I reject your reading of Col 2 as a way of making it fit your preconceptions.
I'm making it fit the actual statements, which yours does not. Your explanation makes no sense of verse 15 "Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it." Or if it does, what is the meaning of this statement?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
This is a more likely understanding of "ransom" than the idea of Christ being punished as our sin substitute.
This brings up another insight of CV that is important. On the one hand the devil had "rights" over us because in our sin we can put ourselves into his legal bondage. But at the same time the devil was a "tyrant" we we needed to be "redeemed" from similar to Pharaoh holding the Israelites in captivity. This is an idea that Paul brings up with the law which on the one hand he says is "holy and good" but on the other hand describes as a "slave master" that has "produced death" in him.
This is the idea that not only we as people can become fallen and in need to redemption, but that our laws, our religion, the very idea of authority can also become fallen and need to be redeemed. In a pre-Constantine world under pagan oppression both in the New Testament time and of the primitive church this perspective makes total sense, but as the Catholic church began to have more of a total (and violent) dominance over all religious authority, this position of course fell out of popularity, and a view of salvation as the individual coming back into the fold became dominant.
I think however we can now appreciate how not only we need to be redeemed, but also how false authority and a focus on law or doctrine that "produces death" also needs to be nailed to the cross.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[QB]
[QUOTE] If you have no idea how it 'works', how can you be so adamant that PSA is wrong? There is mystery here but you appear to be starting from your doctrine of God and then simply reading that into your view of the atonement. I would rather a sort of two-way feedback between what the bible teaches about God and about the atonement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Precisely what we all do really. Start from our non-negotiables. Mine is that Christ substituted for my sin on the cross. I share it with millions of Christians world wide. It is in my view what Paul believed. I reject Sharktacos' reading of Romans 3:25 as a highly speculative linguistic argument that is a mere possible alternative reading. In the total weight of scripture, the evidence for Christ as a penal substitute is significant when the concept of sacrifice is considered. The issue earlier on in the thread was whether a sacrifice is 'punished'. I do not think it possible for one to avoid the obvious reading that it is a penal substitute however much one would like to think differently.
You see, Jamat, this is the why I find debating with you so frustrating. You are arguing about PSA from the point of view that PSA is non-negotiable. And yet, it is not (I believe) an undisputably biblical doctrine, (and you have been given chapter and verse for that)nor it is the doctrine held by most Christians today, nor, as far as we can tell, by most Christians in the past.
The fact is that many people do not see the Bible as teaching what you see it teaching. In fact, PSA was the default teaching of the church in which I came to faith and I rejected it precisely because I could not reconcile it with the scriptures!
quote:
Could I just add one other thing. The things we are discussing here are not academic to me. I have lived them for 30 years. I know what I believe and why and I am starting to get just slightly miffed at the patronising 'there there you don't really understand the issues' tone of some posts. This proves of course that I am still far from holy but you knew that anyway.
Now I don't actually think that the following fact means anything, but I also have been a Christian for a very long time, (born in 1953, came to faith in 1969) and I along with you I try, in as much as God gives me grace, to live the truths that I believe. The gospel is the power of God for salvation to me as well! So believe me, I'm not being patronising when I say that I believe that you have it wrong. As, I assume, you believe that I have it wrong. I just don't think that retreating into "this is a non-negotiable" is terrificly helpful for the debate.
--------------------
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:
If you do not deny punishment then how can God bear our punishment without it being appeasement? The only ways I can think of involve some kind of dualism or world where God is not God because there are 'rules' that he must submit to because they are somehow 'above' him.
Well, you'd probably guess that, unlike possibly sharktacos, I'd take issue with the punishment issue, but the answer to your question here is, basically, the seriousness of sin. Sin is not a problem because it is morally offensive to God (though it is morally offensive to God) but because it is destroying His creation, (and us humans, as part of that creation). Therefore sin (as in, the law of sin and death) itself must, from His point of view, be destroyed. And, furthermore, it must be destroyed in such a way that the new creation which will replace it has sufficient continuity with the old such that sentient creatures such as ourselves can be at home there. In other words, re-creation must be by redemption rather than by starting again from scratch.
If we accept those two premises, then we are left with the "how" question. How can God destroy sin. Of course, He could (we speculate) abolish it, as it were, by fiat (not sure what that would look like, but, hey, we're speculating here). But that would not be redemption, because redemption implies a process of, if you like, purification and refinement, rather than giving up and starting again. The process that God chose to use was to absorb into Himself all the forces of evil and chaos, in the person of the One who was both creator and creature, to overwhelm and exhaust them in the Divine love, and demonstrate by the resurrection that sacrifice and surrender is indeed more powerful than death. You see, I think that, up to that time, Satan, who never really understood God (even in the way it was possible for any finite being to understand God) thought that he could use God's weakness (as he saw it) to overthrow Him, at least in the realm of space-time. He saw love as God's achilles heel, when actually it was His very strength. Satan really did see his opportunity to maybe force God to retire from the physical universe, leaving him as master. He gambled all on slaying the Son, and the die was cast, and, inconceivably to him, he lost. And, at the moment of the resurrection, he knew that he had lost. Love really was the strongest strength, humility was more powerful than pride, surrender than self-interest.
Now this is, as I have said, speculation, but it is no more speculative, no more hand-waving, than the idea that, in some way, punishment is redemptive. We know from our experience that punishment is not redemptive, or our prisons would not be filled with recidivists, just as we know from our experience that love is redemptive.
--------------------
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:
Sin is not a problem because it is morally offensive to God (though it is morally offensive to God) but because it is destroying His creation, (and us humans, as part of that creation). Therefore sin (as in, the law of sin and death) itself must, from His point of view, be destroyed. And, furthermore, it must be destroyed in such a way that the new creation which will replace it has sufficient continuity with the old such that sentient creatures such as ourselves can be at home there. In other words, re-creation must be by redemption rather than by starting again from scratch.
Agreed. To use sharktacos beloved 'medical' metaphor, we are shot through with cancer, it is everywhere, liver, lungs, bowels, brain, blood, blasting it with Chemo or radiotherapy would destroy us. Purification is part of it, but it needs something deeper. A transference of the disease to another who dies with it so that it can no longer be passed on.
All you now have to do is say that 'death is the wages of sin' and voila, you have PSA ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
We know from our experience that punishment is not redemptive, or our prisons would not be filled with recidivists, just as we know from our experience that love is redemptive.
We've been through this before. To be consistent then I assume that you never punished your children when they were growing up. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
[ETA - poor French ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) ]
[ 13. August 2007, 09:56: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
We know from our experience that punishment is not redemptive, or our prisons would not be filled with recidivists, just as we know from our experience that love is redemptive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We've been through this before. To be consistent then I assume that you never punished your children when they were growing up.
Well I hope I never did, though I do have to confess to disciplining them from time to time, but that's a very different thing. Punishment is about me, and isn't redemptive, disciplining is about them and hopefully is.
--------------------
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:
All you now have to do is say that 'death is the wages of sin' and voila, you have PSA
I'm not sure that even adding that would be classic PSA, though it maybe would approach Numpty's more nuanced view. I think, to qualify as PSA, you would have to insert something about volitional punishment, as opposed to the consequential thrust of Romans 6:23
--------------------
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:
Well I hope I never did, though I do have to confess to disciplining them from time to time, but that's a very different thing. Punishment is about me, and isn't redemptive, disciplining is about them and hopefully is.
I admit that I need to think about this more, but here is my initial reaction.
Punishment is only about me if I am trying to impose morality onto someone else. What if punishment is about God, an objective morality and his honour?
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm not sure that even adding that would be classic PSA, though it maybe would approach Numpty's more nuanced view. I think, to qualify as PSA, you would have to insert something about volitional punishment, as opposed to the consequential thrust of Romans 6:23
Obviously I'm not a spokesman for PSA ![[Biased]](wink.gif) , but I'm not so sure.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Punishment is only about me if I am trying to impose morality onto someone else. What if punishment is about God, an objective morality and his honour?
As I see it, what makes the difference between punishment and discipline is not the nature of the action which has brought that punishment about, but rather the motivation of the response. The objective or otherwise nature of the offence is irrelevant. Punishment is, at heart, about the punisher feeling better. We feel affronted, so we must teach the affronter "a lesson they'll never forget". Discipline is about growing the offender out of the offensive behaviour, by "realising" the consequences which are actually present, but may be unseen by the perp. This can be either a direct consequence (child reaching out to touch a fire, or running accross the road) or an indirect consequence (child is mean towards peers, which, if unchecked, could harm social development). The point is to apply the minimum correction necessary to acheive the outcome (not saying that's easy!)
--------------------
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:
As I see it, what makes the difference between punishment and discipline is not the nature of the action which has brought that punishment about, but rather the motivation of the response. The objective or otherwise nature of the offence is irrelevant. Punishment is, at heart, about the punisher feeling better. We feel affronted, so we must teach the affronter "a lesson they'll never forget". Discipline is about growing the offender out of the offensive behaviour, by "realising" the consequences which are actually present, but may be unseen by the perp. This can be either a direct consequence (child reaching out to touch a fire, or running accross the road) or an indirect consequence (child is mean towards peers, which, if unchecked, could harm social development). The point is to apply the minimum correction necessary to acheive the outcome (not saying that's easy!)
But it does make a difference. If, in some sense, I punish my child because God has been affronted, then it has little to do how I feel.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
But it does make a difference. If, in some sense, I punish my child because God has been affronted, then it has little to do how I feel.
Are you not being affronted on God's behalf (possibly unjustifiably)? Why would you want to punish him or her? Why would disciplining be insufficient? Why the need for retribution rather than rectification.
--------------------
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:
Are you not being affronted on God's behalf (possibly unjustifiably)?
Surely whether it is justified or not is the whole point?
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Why would you want to punish him or her? Why would disciplining be insufficient? Why the need for retribution rather than rectification.
I don't like the word retribution since it carries the connotation of revenge. However, what I think (in this context) punishment adds to discipline is a sense of authority. If God is God then we either submit to him willingly or unwillingly. I agree that mostly this is about rectification, but ultimately there is an element of acknowledging the godness of God.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, you'd probably guess that, unlike possibly sharktacos, I'd take issue with the punishment issue
JJ, While I acknowledge the presence of the idea of wrath, punishment and judgment as problems presented in the NT, I do not associate them with the "justice from God" that Paul speaks of. They are the sucky consequences of our brokenness that God in his justice wants to spare us from by making us well.
A doctor will acknowledge in a sense the "rightness" of you having a broken leg when you fell from the window. This is a part of the "law of medicine" that falls break legs. Heck maybe you were even careless and it was your fault that you fell. The doctor however will do everything in her power to make you well, using those same laws of medicine, and then tell you afterwards to be more careful around windows.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
A doctor will acknowledge in a sense the "rightness" of you having a broken leg when you fell from the window. This is a part of the "law of medicine" that falls break legs.
Thank you for explaining that, Sharky. I am feeling like JJ and was not comfortable with your recognition of punishment. But your explanation, if I understand you, is exactly how I see it.
God is not the source of punishment. But the world that He created does include consequences for disorder. A fall results in a broken bone - which is painful. God did not cause the pain, He is not angry at you for falling, it is just what happens according to the physical laws of the created world.
The same is true spiritually. Humanity's brokenness results in painful consequences. These can be seen as punishments, but they are really just the direct result of the brokenness.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
This is a part of the "law of medicine" that falls break legs.
Unfortunate turn of phrase. Laws mean the imposition of authority. Who made those laws in the first place?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
The same is true spiritually. Humanity's brokenness results in painful consequences. These can be seen as punishments, but they are really just the direct result of the brokenness.
Exactly so, Freddy. I'm not comfortable with describing the effects of sin as punishment because it implies volitional input from God which I believe to be absent. We may perceive a set of circumstances as punishment, but that set will be the consequences of our actions, not God's. The use of the word punishment obscures rather than illuminates that process.
--------------------
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 sharktacos:
This is a part of the "law of medicine" that falls break legs.
Unfortunate turn of phrase. Laws mean the imposition of authority. Who made those laws in the first place?
Not necessarily the imposition of authority. Actually, there is a difference between natural laws and "legal" laws, something that Paul is at pains to emphasise, with his contrast between the "legal" law and the law of sin and death.
--------------------
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:
Are you not being affronted on God's behalf (possibly unjustifiably)?
Surely whether it is justified or not is the whole point?
I disagree. If we punish for "good reason" we do a bad thing for a (possibly) good reason. If we punish unjustifiably, we do a bad thing for a bad reason. Either way, punishment is a bad response to a situation.
--------------------
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 don't like the word retribution since it carries the connotation of revenge. However, what I think (in this context) punishment adds to discipline is a sense of authority. If God is God then we either submit to him willingly or unwillingly. I agree that mostly this is about rectification, but ultimately there is an element of acknowledging the godness of God.
Is that what you see to be the difference between discipline and punishment? Because I don't believe that the exercise of discipline can be divorced from authority, in this or any other situation.
--------------------
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:
Not necessarily the imposition of authority. Actually, there is a difference between natural laws and "legal" laws, something that Paul is at pains to emphasise, with his contrast between the "legal" law and the law of sin and death.
Quit stalling.
I know there is a difference but God stands behind all of them and therefore 'cause and effect' must come down (eventually) to his instigation.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Is that what you see to be the difference between discipline and punishment? Because I don't believe that the exercise of discipline can be divorced from authority, in this or any other situation.
Maybe I'm hair-splitting.
Discipline, to me, implies voluntarily submitting to said authority.
Punishment is more a matter of fact. It is what happens when someone refuses to submit to authority.
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:
Not necessarily the imposition of authority. Actually, there is a difference between natural laws and "legal" laws, something that Paul is at pains to emphasise, with his contrast between the "legal" law and the law of sin and death.
Quit stalling.
I know there is a difference but God stands behind all of them and therefore 'cause and effect' must come down (eventually) to his instigation.
Well Paul seemed to think the difference was significant. Most of us do not lay the blame for earthquakes at God's door, in spite of His sustaining of the physical laws which allow them to happen.
--------------------
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:
Is that what you see to be the difference between discipline and punishment? Because I don't believe that the exercise of discipline can be divorced from authority, in this or any other situation.
Maybe I'm hair-splitting.
Discipline, to me, implies voluntarily submitting to said authority.
Punishment is more a matter of fact. It is what happens when someone refuses to submit to authority.
Maybe you ought to explain that to my kids! ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) (Actually they were all little angels. Honest!)
--------------------
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:
Most of us do not lay the blame for earthquakes at God's door, in spite of His sustaining of the physical laws which allow them to happen.
This is a bit of a tangent, but I do think that modern apologetics is a bit weak here.
I do not 'blame' God for earthquakes, but I do think (somehow) he must be responsible for them. God does not stand behind bad things in the same way that he stands behind good things, but he nevertheless stands behind them all.
Bertrand Russell, “I can imagine a sardonic demon producing us for his amusement, but I cannot attribute to a being who is wise and omnipotent the terrible weight of cruelty and suffering of what is best that has marred the history of man.”
I agree with Russell. Faced with a God who is all loving and all powerful I just can't reconcile earthquakes.... and everything else. Either he is not all loving or he is not omnipotent. That is, unless he is also just and holy and 'the wrath of God is being revealed' (Romans 1: 18). I certainly do not mean that this is a direct cause and effect relationship of bad people getting squished by a volcano. (It would be monstrous to suggest that with all the innocent suffering that happens.) But I do think there is some sense in which bad stuff happens as a way of showing that God is angry with sin. Otherwise I think Russell was right to ridicule Christians for the weakness of their thinking.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Faced with a God who is all loving and all powerful I just can't reconcile earthquakes.... and everything else. Either he is not all loving or he is not omnipotent. That is, unless he is also just and holy and 'the wrath of God is being revealed' (Romans 1: 18). I certainly do not mean that this is a direct cause and effect relationship of bad people getting squished by a volcano. (It would be monstrous to suggest that with all the innocent suffering that happens.) But I do think there is some sense in which bad stuff happens as a way of showing that God is angry with sin.
This is actually a pretty revealing statement, Johnny. Are you sure that there aren't other ways out of it?
My version of this same idea is that disorder begets disorder, causing the innocent to suffer. By contrast, if theoretically there was no sin, there would also be no disease, no hunger or poverty, and no accident or earthquake victims.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
My version of this same idea is that disorder begets disorder, causing the innocent to suffer. By contrast, if theoretically there was no sin, there would also be no disease, no hunger or poverty, and no accident or earthquake victims.
Perhaps I'm not being clear.
I think the same as you above. However, if God created a world where these things are the consequences of sin then that must also reflect his nature.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
My version of this same idea is that disorder begets disorder, causing the innocent to suffer. By contrast, if theoretically there was no sin, there would also be no disease, no hunger or poverty, and no accident or earthquake victims.
Perhaps I'm not being clear.
I think the same as you above. However, if God created a world where these things are the consequences of sin then that must also reflect his nature.
God also created a world with suffering and evil and disease in it, but we would not say this is part of his nature.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think the same as you above. However, if God created a world where these things are the consequences of sin then that must also reflect his nature.
He created a reality that includes opposition. If it would have been better for Him to create a reality that did not include opposites, then He would have done it.
But this is really a consequence of His love, not His nature in the sense that opposition is punished. His love requires that people be free to love or not love in return. Freedom is an essential aspect of love. But the reality is that opposition necessarily deprives a person of the benefits of conjunction with God.
So God does not punish, nor does He wish for punishment. He did create a reality that includes the possibility of opposites, and the consequences of this are that there are such things as harmful choices. But this is not punishment, nor does it indicate that God's nature includes anger or punishment.
These things are described in the Bible as anger and punishment because this is the subjective appearance. But it's not the reality attributable to the God of love.
--------------------
"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
|
|
craigb
Shipmate
# 11318
|
Posted
Hi sharktacos
quote:
God also created a world with suffering and evil and disease in it, but we would not say this is part of his nature.
I don't think this is sustainable - for Genesis tells us that God created a world that was good. Suffering, evil, and disease came about from sin.
An interesting point I would like to see addressed by PSAers and in the subject of CV is that God created humans with the ability to sin, knowing full well that humans would sin and yet called his creation GOOD. Why do we call bad what God calls good?
Also in regards to the subject on Christs humanity a few pages back, I think we often look at the humanity of Christ from the wrong perspective.
We humans are made in the image of God and therefore by default Christ has to be fully human and fully God as we represent his humanity.
I'm also reading this thread with interest as I am studying Christology at the moment and need to look and know about the various theories of the atonement.
Posts: 993 | From: Tahmoor | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
this brings up another insight that CV gives us:
PSA frames the world in terms of a righteous angry God and a sinful humanity.
CV broadens that picture to include the biblical emphasis on Satan.
In doing so it is able to not only address our problem of guilt and shame, but also the more contemporary issues of alienation, despair, and unjust suffering. In other words, the issue of theodicy (How can an all powerful and loving God allow evil and unjust suffering?) is addressed by CV's understanding of the world being under demonic rule, while it is exacerbated by the two party view of PSA.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
Craig, if you will recall, the original statement by Johnny was that "if God created a world where these things are the consequences of sin then that must also reflect his nature." by that logic we would be forced to conclude that sickness and disease, which are also as you say the result of sin, would necessarily be in God's nature as well. Which is why I conclude the the entire line of reasoning is flawed. Wrath is no more in God's nature then sickness is.
Nowhere is wrath described as an attribute of God. God's wrath is a consequence of his righteousness, just as God's sorrow comes from his compassion. God gets angry and sad because he loves. His nature is not anger or sadness.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Craig, if you will recall, the original statement by Johnny was that "if God created a world where these things are the consequences of sin then that must also reflect his nature." by that logic we would be forced to conclude that sickness and disease, which are also as you say the result of sin, would necessarily be in God's nature as well. Which is why I conclude the the entire line of reasoning is flawed. Wrath is no more in God's nature then sickness is.
I think my argument was rather more sophisticated than you are making out. (But I would say that. )
I didn't say that God creating the world means that everything that happens (incl. sin and sickness) is part of his nature. What I said was if God created the 'laws' of nature (e.g. that sickness is a result of sin) then that reflects something about his nature. Otherwise we collapse into some kind of dualism where there are parts of creation that are outside of his control. God made the 'rules' in the first place, that must tell us something about him. I don't see any other way to understand verses 18-20 of Romans 1.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by craigb:
Also in regards to the subject on Christs humanity a few pages back, I think we often look at the humanity of Christ from the wrong perspective.
We humans are made in the image of God and therefore by default Christ has to be fully human and fully God as we represent his humanity.
Yes, but CV needs a 'Victor' to fight on our behalf. No one has come up with a convincing reason why our 'champion' has to be fully human to defeat sin and death. Why can't he just fight on our behalf like one of the Greek gods?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by craigb:
Also in regards to the subject on Christ's humanity a few pages back, I think we often look at the humanity of Christ from the wrong perspective.
We humans are made in the image of God and therefore by default Christ has to be fully human and fully God as we represent his humanity.
Yes, but CV needs a 'Victor' to fight on our behalf. No one has come up with a convincing reason why our 'champion' has to be fully human to defeat sin and death. Why can't he just fight on our behalf like one of the Greek gods?
I thought we had covered this, but I'll have another go.
I think that there are a number of different aspects to this.
Firstly, the means by which the victory is acheived requires the authority which can only come from God. Only God can forgive sins in an ontological way. The cross/resurrection is the proof of the efficacy of that forgiveness, and so, whilst, from this narrow point, this is only a reason for Jesus to be divine in his ministry, and not necessarily in His death, it would be a very contrived theology that separated the two.
Secondly, there is the fact that God is, in fact, an offended party in this. I have never disputed that God would be perfectly within His rights to punish sin. That I don't think that punishing sin would be conducive to His aims is irrelevant. If we take this right as a given, then the surrendering of this right, even under the most extreme provocation, is indicative of His commitment to humanity. It is one thing to send someone not Us (ie, not one of the Trinity, if I can speak of mysteries in such a crass way) to suffer and die, it is quite another to surrender Ourselves, to surrender the Creator to the creation.
Thirdly, you cannot separate the cross fdrom the resurrection. The Son was the agent of the first creation. Only the Son could be the agent of the new creation initiated on the first Easter Sunday. Whilst it might be possible for an only human Messiah to defeat sin (though I find it hard to imagine such a thing), that non-God man could not accomplish the re-creation. Of course, I would speculate that something of the nature of that re-creation would have been lost had Jesus not been fully human as well, but it would, IMV, be inconceivable that a mere human could accomplish the remaking of creation.
Just a few thoughts.
[ 14. August 2007, 09:13: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
No one has come up with a convincing reason why our 'champion' has to be fully human to defeat sin and death. Why can't he just fight on our behalf like one of the Greek gods?
Johnny, you should have mentioned this before. Christ had to be human to defeat sin and death because sin and death are human, not divine, problems.
The problem of sin is not a cosmic one, with a great and powerful devil opposing a great and powerful God. The problem of sin is specific to humans, for whom it has an appeal that is connected primarily with the desires of their senses.
So the problem of sin for God is not about how to overcome a powerful cosmic force, but how to re-orient the priorities of a weak humanity, so that they value heavenly over worldly things.
Christ needed to be human to do this because the problem only makes sense, or only exists, in a human context. As a human He could be attacked by sin, or by the spiritual forces that represent it, and overcome them. He overcame them by resisting their appeal, or through obedience to the Father, which is represented in all of Christ's miracles, words, actions and struggles.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by craigb:
Also in regards to the subject on Christs humanity a few pages back, I think we often look at the humanity of Christ from the wrong perspective.
We humans are made in the image of God and therefore by default Christ has to be fully human and fully God as we represent his humanity.
Yes, but CV needs a 'Victor' to fight on our behalf. No one has come up with a convincing reason why our 'champion' has to be fully human to defeat sin and death. Why can't he just fight on our behalf like one of the Greek gods?
You're concentrating on the one aspect and ignoring the wider context again Johnny. It's not that Christ has to be human solely as our champion, but he does have to be human for us to self-identify with Him, for His life to be our life, and for our humanity to be taken into the Godhead at His ascension. Asking why Jesus had to be human for one small part of the whole makes as much sense as asking why Jesus had to be human to perform miracles.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Sorry, John, misread your question, or rather misremembered 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
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
No one has come up with a convincing reason why our 'champion' has to be fully human to defeat sin and death. Why can't he just fight on our behalf like one of the Greek gods?
As I have said before: because our problem is internal, we need to God to live as us so that we can live in God.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
So, Johnny, within an hour you had four responses to your question. I doubt that you find any of them convincing. Am I right?
I expect that the reason is that you are completely convinced of the rightness of the need for Christ's humanity according to PSA - that Christ needed to be human to take humanity's punishment and pay the price of sin with human blood. Is this right?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Paul in Col would seem to say that Christ prclaimed to the powers of Hell, in th hours before his resurrection, that the price for sin had been paid. Col 2:13,15. v 14 is particularly interesting in this regard.
"having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us:and he has taken it out of the way having nailed it to the cross."
I read the passage differently:
quote:
NKJV Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.
When Paul says "having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us" he is saying that Jesus, having fulfilled the ritual law, no longer requires it. As Paul says in the next verses:
quote:
Colossians 2:16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ... 20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— 21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” 22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.
This makes it clear that the "handwriting of requirements" are the ritual laws that say “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” or that are about "food or drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths," which are of no value in actually turning away from sin.
So when Paul says:
quote:
And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.
he means that the ritual law was nailed to the cross, or that the fulfilled reality makes these symbolic practices into mere "shadows." The reality is that Jesus "disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it."
In other words, I think that you are misreading Paul. The price Jesus paid was in the sense of having disarmed the enemy through His self-sacrifice and by His mighty power.
Along the lines of this discussion, I noticed an article by Simons Gathercole in this week's Christianity Today which mentions this point as part of the new perspective on Paul:
quote:
According to the new perspective, Paul is only focusing on these aspects of Jewish life (Sabbath, circumcision, food laws) when he mentions "works of the law." His problem isn't legalistic self-righteousness in general. Rather, for Jews these works of the law highlighted God's election of the Jewish nation, excluding Gentiles. Called by God to reach the Gentiles, Paul recognizes that Jews wrongly restricted God's covenant to themselves.
Doesn't this "new perspective" indicate that it is the ritual law that is nailed to the cross in Colossians 2:14?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Asking why Jesus had to be human for one small part of the whole makes as much sense as asking why Jesus had to be human to perform miracles.
I'm asking it because it was a very big deal to the early church fathers.
I can't dismiss key aspects of church history to the dustbin of 'insignifcant part' quite as easily as you.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So, Johnny, within an hour you had four responses to your question. I doubt that you find any of them convincing. Am I right?
Haven't had time to read them all yet. At first glance, you're spot on.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I expect that the reason is that you are completely convinced of the rightness of the need for Christ's humanity according to PSA - that Christ needed to be human to take humanity's punishment and pay the price of sin with human blood. Is this right?
Yes and No. I am currently convinced of PSA but open to be corrected. I would hope that others hold their convictions about CV similarly.
I do think, as you suggest, that PSA is consonant with the early church fathers who insisted that Christ's full humanity was absolutely necessary for salvation. As it were PSA is a model that fits with this piece of data. I like CV but think this is one area of weakness for it as a model.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Asking why Jesus had to be human for one small part of the whole makes as much sense as asking why Jesus had to be human to perform miracles.
I'm asking it because it was a very big deal to the early church fathers.
I can't dismiss key aspects of church history to the dustbin of 'insignifcant part' quite as easily as you.
I never used the word "insignificant".
The point I am making is that Christ's humanity is essential for His whole work from the manger to the clouds. I don't feel the need to make it essential at every point on that journey.
Our champion on the Cross has to be human because after He's won the victory on the cross He takes our redeemed Humanity, which He has borne in His person through life and death, into the Godhead and thereby enables our Theosis.
Isn't that enough?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The problem of sin is not a cosmic one, with a great and powerful devil opposing a great and powerful God. The problem of sin is specific to humans, for whom it has an appeal that is connected primarily with the desires of their senses.
I thought the doctrine of the Fall/original sin was that the whole created order was effected by the sin of Adam and Eve so the entire cosmos needs redemption, not just humans. I think that's particularly a view held by the Puritans, e.g. John Milton in Paradise Lost.
--------------------
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
As with Leo I'm getting really confused here.
Sharktacos, how does this ....
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
CV broadens that picture to include the biblical emphasis on Satan.... is addressed by CV's understanding of the world being under demonic rule...
fit with this ...
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
As I have said before: because our problem is internal, we need to God to live as us so that we can live in God.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
