homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Christus Victor (Page 25)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  ...  67  68  69 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Christus Victor
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
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.
I don't disagree with that view, but I see those things as being affected by humanity's sinful state. So the problem, and the solution, still rest with the need to reform humanity.

I also would not generalize it to the cosmos. I would restrict it to this particular planet. [Biased]

--------------------
"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      Profile for sharktacos   Author's homepage   Email sharktacos   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
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.

[Ultra confused]

It fits because our bondage to Satan is internal.
Therefore what being liberated out of bondage means is a change in identity, going from being a "child of Satan" and belonging to "the world" with our identity defined by that hateful brokenness, we are "adopted" into God's family.

You can see here that a lot of NT analogies overlap: redemption out of slavery, adoption, etc. Because these are all analogies that are attempting to explain complex heavenly and deeply internal things we need a bunch of different metaphors to try and get at this complex picture. That's why in general the perspective you are taking of trying to combine several perspectives on the atonement is a good one because any single motif or analogy is going to only show us one aspect of what is going on. I do think however that it is important as well to try and work out how the different pictures fit together so we have a combined mosaic rather then a hodge podge of motifs.

--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/

Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807

 - Posted      Profile for sharktacos   Author's homepage   Email sharktacos   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

I also would not generalize it to the cosmos. I would restrict it to this particular planet. [Biased]

I see your smiley, but I wanted to mention anyway that "cosmos" as Paul uses it refers to the spiritual realm and principalities and powers which are an important part of what CV deals with in addition to redeeming us humans.

--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/

Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

I also would not generalize it to the cosmos. I would restrict it to this particular planet. [Biased]

I see your smiley, but I wanted to mention anyway that "cosmos" as Paul uses it refers to the spiritual realm and principalities and powers which are an important part of what CV deals with in addition to redeeming us humans.
Ooh. Good point. I agree.

I especially think that the spiritual realm is an important element here.

[ 14. August 2007, 19:24: Message edited by: Freddy ]

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

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
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.

Perhaps it may help to explain why it is to me utterly non negotiable.
PSA offers a clear rationale for blood sacrifice, particularly propitiary sacrifice.
PSA offers a rationale for the different scriptural elements in God's character, his judgements and his paradoxical love.
PSA clearly explains how the believer is subsumed into the cross and identified with the messiah through faith.
PSA adequately explains the essence of the mechanics of salvation..the how of the forgiveness possible on the basis of the cross.
PSA deals with the sin problem and the sins problem, the disease and the fruit of the disease. It explains how we can be forgiven and opens the possibil;ity of true holiness.
PSA explains God's holiness adequately and allows for it.
PSA accords well with the OT notably IS 53.
PSA is the most internally consistent model one can use to explain scriptures such as Ro 3:25, 1Jn 2:2, 1Jn 4:10, 1Cor5:7,Heb9:14,28, 1Pet 1:19,Rev1:5,
PSA contains a clear understanding of redemption.
PSA suggests a concept of justice in line with many Biblical stories.
I am convinced it is what the scripture writers believed.

--------------------
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
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
It fits because our bondage to Satan is internal.
Therefore what being liberated out of bondage means is a change in identity, going from being a "child of Satan" and belonging to "the world" with our identity defined by that hateful brokenness, we are "adopted" into God's family.

But that's my point, you're fighting a losing battle (unvictor [Big Grin] ) if you think that CV works better than PSA in describing something that is internal. I thought earlier that your big problem with PSA was that it was too obsessed with the internal.

I like CV but, as a metaphor, it inevitably focuses towards Christ fighting an external enemy, where as PSA tends to stress the internal consequences of sin.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I like CV but, as a metaphor, it inevitably focuses towards Christ fighting an external enemy, where as PSA tends to stress the internal consequences of sin.

In CV the enemy is within us. Christ battles the devil inside of each of us. We are not the devil, we are merely prone to following him unless we rely on Christ, who gives us the strength to resist him.

PSA, as I understand it, does not explain how we resist the devil.

--------------------
"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      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
In CV the enemy is within us. Christ battles the devil inside of each of us. We are not the devil, we are merely prone to following him unless we rely on Christ, who gives us the strength to resist him.


Maybe, but the metaphor itself more naturallly conjures up images of an external enemy.

This is just the same as those who say that PSA, as a model, encourages us to model retributive justice in society. Equally I say that the model, in and of itself, may point that way, but we shouldn't apply it like that. It is at this point that you guys shout 'foul'.

Why doesn't it work both ways?

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hmmm... Perhaps I should explain why I find PSA so unsatisfying as a model:

quote:
PSA offers a clear rationale for blood sacrifice, particularly propitiary sacrifice.
Only by back-reading penal substitution into the OT sacrifice model.

quote:
PSA offers a rationale for the different scriptural elements in God's character, his judgements and his paradoxical love.
Only by proposing that punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty is "justice".

quote:
PSA clearly explains how the believer is subsumed into the cross and identified with the messiah through faith.
CV does this as well. The Incarnation enables identification, which is effected through Baptism. Having identified with our champion, we share in the benefits of His work on the cross.

quote:
PSA adequately explains the essence of the mechanics of salvation..the how of the forgiveness possible on the basis of the cross.
Forgiveness happens because God is forgiving. His nature is, as the CofE Liturgy says, always to have mercy. He doesn't need to have His arm twisted by a legal fiction.

quote:
PSA deals with the sin problem and the sins problem, the disease and the fruit of the disease. It explains how we can be forgiven and opens the possibil;ity of true holiness.
As does CV. Christ defeats sin. As we grow in theosis, dying to self and living to Him, we become freed from the disease of sin. Forgiveness is only the start of it, the very start.

quote:
PSA explains God's holiness adequately and allows for it.
Only if your definition of holiness is "hates sin and HAS HAS HAS to squash people for it".

quote:
PSA accords well with the OT notably IS 53.
Which has been discussed earlier. No-one denies that Christ suffered in our place and for our benefit - He suffers, we don't. But this is a very different thing from PSA, which states that God the Father punishes Christ.

quote:
PSA is the most internally consistent model one can use to explain scriptures such as Ro 3:25, 1Jn 2:2, 1Jn 4:10, 1Cor5:7,Heb9:14,28, 1Pet 1:19,Rev1:5,
Naturally if you start with a conclusion you will find texts which fit it.

quote:
PSA contains a clear understanding of redemption.
I'm not sure this is any more than any other model.

quote:
PSA suggests a concept of justice in line with many Biblical stories.
If you're talking about hanging the sons of Saul for what Saul did, then I've told you what I think of that "justice" - it's not. It's evil, wicked, injustice and should never, ever be commended. That the writer of Samuel seemed to think it was merely shows how much he was a man of his particular culture, which in this matter was deeply flawed. Unless you think it fair if I come and kill your son for what you have done wrong. I hope you'd tell me to fuck off.

quote:
I am convinced it is what the scripture writers believed.
I'm convinced it's what you want them to have believed.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
JimS
Shipmate
# 10766

 - Posted      Profile for JimS   Email JimS   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Hebrew scriptures make it very clear that the "god" who requires human sacrifice is Baal not YHWH. The Abraham/Isaac story and numerous other examples make this clear.
No Jew, Jesus, Paul etc. could have accepted PSA.

--------------------
Jim:Confused of Crewe

Posts: 137 | From: uk | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807

 - Posted      Profile for sharktacos   Author's homepage   Email sharktacos   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
It fits because our bondage to Satan is internal.
Therefore what being liberated out of bondage means is a change in identity, going from being a "child of Satan" and belonging to "the world" with our identity defined by that hateful brokenness, we are "adopted" into God's family.

But that's my point, you're fighting a losing battle (unvictor [Big Grin] ) if you think that CV works better than PSA in describing something that is internal. I thought earlier that your big problem with PSA was that it was too obsessed with the internal.

I like CV but, as a metaphor, it inevitably focuses towards Christ fighting an external enemy, where as PSA tends to stress the internal consequences of sin.

That's not true. PSA because it deals with sin on a legal level is anthropocentric, but completely external. It deals with averting our external punishment only, not with anything internal for us. For that it needs to add other doctrines on to itself.

CV in contrast deals both with individual and societal sin, and deals with the internals of both because of its medical model.

--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/

Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hi Jim.

quote:
Originally posted by JimS:
The Abraham/Isaac story and numerous other examples make this clear.

[Killing me] Commentators have been arguing over the point of Genesis 22 since before Jesus. Indeed many PSAers claim it as their OT 'seed'. The story of God demanding Abraham's son for sacrifice but then providing the sacrifice himself fits perfectly with CV or PSA.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:

CV in contrast deals both with individual and societal sin, and deals with the internals of both because of its medical model.

We're doing a kids club at church next week and the theme is 'Superheroes'. Inspired by this thread (you'll be pleased to know [Big Grin] ) I thought about a talk on Jesus as 'the superhero', although he wins by losing.

Anyway, I therefore thought we would look at the CV passage in the NT to base this idea on - Colossians 2: 13-15.

"When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross."

However, two things struck me about these verses:

1. Clearly Paul uses the 'victory' language to describe an external triumph - I don't recall any commentator seriously suggesting that the 'powers and authorities' were entirely internal.

2. He also links that 'victory' motif with a legal / penal one. (After all the point he is making about the law is that it condemned us.)


doesn't it bother you that you have do so much work on the central text in order to make it 'fit' your view of CV?

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, two things struck me about these verses:
1. Clearly Paul uses the 'victory' language to describe an external triumph - I don't recall any commentator seriously suggesting that the 'powers and authorities' were entirely internal.

I hope you look at Jamat's and my discussion of these verses above.

Are "sin" and "demons" external or internal? Insofar as these forces work within us, the work, and the victory, are internal.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
2. He also links that 'victory' motif with a legal / penal one. (After all the point he is making about the law is that it condemned us.)

The point he is making is about the Jewish ritual laws of circumcision, about the 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." These are of no value in actually turning away from sin. They merely distinguish Jews from non-Jews and so are "against us."
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
doesn't it bother you that you have do so much work on the central text in order to make it 'fit' your view of CV?

Just the opposite. It's PSA that needs to rework the central texts, and ignore Jesus' own teachings, to make a fit.

--------------------
"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      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Are "sin" and "demons" external or internal? Insofar as these forces work within us, the work, and the victory, are internal.

My point was about Colossians 2: 15, I've never heard anyone claim that Paul is talking about purely internal enemies there.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The point he is making is about the Jewish ritual laws of circumcision, about the 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." These are of no value in actually turning away from sin. They merely distinguish Jews from non-Jews and so are "against us."

No, that is the application that Paul makes, the work of Christ (as I'm sure you would agree) is much deeper. In verse 22 of chapter 1 he speaks of the cross making us 'free from accusation'. The written code condemns us, Jesus has set us free from that. Neverthless Paul is using a legal metaphor to explain the cross.


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It's PSA that needs to rework the central texts, and ignore Jesus' own teachings, to make a fit.

I think you might have said that before. [Big Grin]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Are "sin" and "demons" external or internal? Insofar as these forces work within us, the work, and the victory, are internal.

My point was about Colossians 2: 15, I've never heard anyone claim that Paul is talking about purely internal enemies there.
So who are the external enemies? The Romans? The Jewish leadership? Are "sin" and "demons" external or internal?

--------------------
"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      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So who are the external enemies? The Romans? The Jewish leadership? Are "sin" and "demons" external or internal?

If you notice I said purely internal.

I'm sure demons have an internal influence too but all commentators I have ever read assume Col. 2 v 15 refers to external evil spiritual forces - i.e. the demonic realm.

[ 16. August 2007, 14:11: Message edited by: Johnny S ]

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So who are the external enemies? The Romans? The Jewish leadership? Are "sin" and "demons" external or internal?

If you notice I said purely internal.

I'm sure demons have an internal influence too but all commentators I have ever read assume Col. 2 v 15 refers to external evil spiritual forces - i.e. the demonic realm.

So what's the problem? The demonic realm can be seen as either internal or external, depending on how you look at it.

--------------------
"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      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So what's the problem? The demonic realm can be seen as either internal or external, depending on how you look at it.

Er, no. I was saying that the demonic realm may well have internal consequences but it must also be external. Col. 2 v 15 seems to be stressing the external aspect.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So what's the problem? The demonic realm can be seen as either internal or external, depending on how you look at it.

Er, no. I was saying that the demonic realm may well have internal consequences but it must also be external. Col. 2 v 15 seems to be stressing the external aspect.
I'm not seeing what the problem is.

Even if the demonic realm is external, and Christ fought against it as an external force, it is neither visible or tangible in this world. The entire spiritual realm is by definition internal because it is invisible. It only affects anyone through their spirit, which is internal and invisible. At least, I've never run into demons anywhere else - I've never seen or been aware of them at all.

So evil spiritual forces are external to a person in the sense that they are not the person himself or herself. But since they don't walk around visibly in the world they only exist within us, so to speak. Or they don't exist at all, according to many.

So I don't see the conflict with Col 2:15. What am I missing? Do I have an entirely different view of how demons work than you do? [Confused]

--------------------
"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      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I'm not seeing what the problem is.

Okay. This is just an analogy, please don't take it too literally.

In Marvel comic world super heroes (batman / spiderman etc.) have all sorts of arch enemies to combat. However, their greatest enemy is often themselves (feelings of guilt or whatever).

CV in Col. 2 v 15 is much more about 'kapow' to the Green Goblin than it is about internal struggles. Even if their effects may be internal the demons are external enemies.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
CV in Col. 2 v 15 is much more about 'kapow' to the Green Goblin than it is about internal struggles. Even if their effects may be internal the demons are external enemies.

Yes, that makes sense to me. This is why I enjoy Spiderman.

But why is this a problem? Christ defeated this enemy. It was external. Are you saying that "sin" and "demons" are not also internal problems? Are you saying that He does not defeat the sin that is within us?

--------------------
"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      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Are you saying that "sin" and "demons" are not also internal problems? Are you saying that He does not defeat the sin that is within us?

No. I'm just saying that Col. 2 v 15 is using the CV picture externally.

Now, I've got some work to do so I won't be around for a while.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Are you saying that "sin" and "demons" are not also internal problems? Are you saying that He does not defeat the sin that is within us?

No. I'm just saying that Col. 2 v 15 is using the CV picture externally.
OK. Sure. You're just not saying what "externally" means in relation to "sin" and "demons."

You were originally responding to Sharktacos' statement:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
CV in contrast deals both with individual and societal sin, and deals with the internals of both because of its medical model.

You seem to be saying that Col. 2 v 15 somehow contradicts this. Do you really think that it does?

It does bring up an important concept about how sin works. Is sin within us or outside of us? Are demons within us or outside of us? The question is an important one because of its implications about what "fallenness" is.

Are we "fallen" because sin is an intrinsic part of us?

Or are we "fallen" because we are predisposed by our heredity to be vulnerable to the appeal of "sin" and "demons"?

I think that the implications of CV are the latter.

--------------------
"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      Profile for sharktacos   Author's homepage   Email sharktacos   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

1. Clearly Paul uses the 'victory' language to describe an external triumph - I don't recall any commentator seriously suggesting that the 'powers and authorities' were entirely internal.

Perhaps we need to define our terms more clearly. When I said that PSA was "external" what I meant is that it deals with averting an external punishment rather than with solving the problem of sin in us.

Paul's language of the "powers and authorities" is not speaking of external things because as he says "our struggle is not against flesh and blood but against the principalities and powers of this dark age". In other words, he is speaking of a spiritual reality. That spiritual reality, while being larger then just us, has a direct impact on us inside. Our bondage to it is internal in that it effects us, it shapes who we are, our identity and self-worth.

So the powers are not just us. There is a bigger thing going on. But they are connected to us, and thus to liberate us from them entails and inner transformation in us.

I think perhaps Johnny you are taking Paul's analogies too rigidly and expecting them to fit exactly. Paul uses a number of different analogies rather than just one so that when you put them all together you can get at the big picture he is painting.

quote:

2. He also links that 'victory' motif with a legal / penal one. (After all the point he is making about the law is that it condemned us.)

Legal yes. Penal no. The victory motif is a liberation motif. He is crucifying the law here which had condemned us. He is not in this appeasing the law, he is killing it. Like us the law dies to the sin in it, so that it can rise to become the servant of love.

quote:
doesn't it bother you that you have do so much work on the central text in order to make it 'fit' your view of CV?
The work is because we have adopted a wrong way of seeing things and projected it onto the text and need to unlearn this so we can listen to what the Bible is actually saying.

CV fits with all of the Bible. PSA does not. And I don't just mean we can squeeze it to fit. It fits with the original intent and point of the authors. It fits with the historical settings and world view of the time.

--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/

Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you, sharktacos. Excellently put.

But I wonder about this:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
The victory motif is a liberation motif. He is crucifying the law here which had condemned us. He is not in this appeasing the law, he is killing it. Like us the law dies to the sin in it, so that it can rise to become the servant of love.

I don't disagree with this, but I'm wondering what you mean by "the law." I referred above to the new perspective on Paul, which indicates that "the law" here is the ritual law, not the actual laws of right and wrong that are taught in the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and elsewhere both in the OT and the NT.

I do agree that these laws are the servant of love - since love necessarily entails obeying them.

What is your thinking on this?

--------------------
"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      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Paul's language of the "powers and authorities" is not speaking of external things because as he says "our struggle is not against flesh and blood but against the principalities and powers of this dark age". In other words, he is speaking of a spiritual reality. That spiritual reality, while being larger then just us, has a direct impact on us inside. Our bondage to it is internal in that it effects us, it shapes who we are, our identity and self-worth.

I'm still not clear. Are you saying that spiritual powers cannot be external? ('Cos if so, then I would think that you'd be pretty novel in that.)


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I think perhaps Johnny you are taking Paul's analogies too rigidly and expecting them to fit exactly. Paul uses a number of different analogies rather than just one so that when you put them all together you can get at the big picture he is painting.

[Big Grin]

But how can I be taking Paul too literally if, as you claim, CV fits so easily with the plain reading of scripture?

Let me guess, an angel appeared one night with some special glasses and now you can see what the NT is really about. I wish you well in your new denomination. [Biased]

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Are you saying that spiritual powers cannot be external? ('Cos if so, then I would think that you'd be pretty novel in that.)

What do you mean by external? I think that's the issue.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But how can I be taking Paul too literally if, as you claim, CV fits so easily with the plain reading of scripture?

Taking Paul too literally means not paying attention to context and metaphors, and not asking what Paul really meant by what he said. People do this all the time.

CV more closely follows the larger themes of Scripture than PSA, which relies on a superficial understanding of a few concepts and verses.

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

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[QB] Hmmm... Perhaps I should explain why I find PSA so unsatisfying as a model:

quote:
PSA offers a clear rationale for blood sacrifice, particularly propitiary sacrifice.
Only by back-reading penal substitution into the OT sacrifice model
Did you take in my mention several posts back ,of the Edenic couple needing to be clothed in skins? also the reason Abel's sacrifice was accepted and Cain's not?
Not a back readinding..to me intrinsic.

If you don't like the God of the OT scriptures and write him off as a genocidal maniac, who's got the problem? The OT God was the only God Jesus was connected with.

--------------------
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
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I still can't understand why some think PSA which, istm, makes God rather stupid in choosing Passover which has nothing to do with sin offering at all when He could have chosen Yom Kippur which has everything to do with sin offering and atonement for all the people and the only day when the Holy of Holies was entered.


The bloody sacrifices were: bull, two goats, two rams. The two lambs were part of the daily offering, not special to Yom Kippur.


quote:
General observances
Yom Kippur, also known as the Day of Atonement, is the Jewish day of repentance. It is considered to be one of the holiest and most solemn days of the year. Its central theme is atonement from sins against both God and one's fellow man.


....

The main section of the Avodah is a threefold recitation of the High Priest's actions regarding expiation in the Holy of Holies. Performing the sacrificial acts and reciting Leviticus 16:30, "for on this day atonement shall be made for you, to atone for you for all your sins, before God..." (he would recite the Tetragrammaton at this point, to which the people would prostrate to the ground) and after extending the Name, he would finish the verse "...you shall be purified." He would first ask for forgiveness for himself and his family ("Your pious man"), then for the priestly caste ("Your holy people"), and finally for all of Israel ("Your upright children"). (Yom Kippur)

Passover was not for a sin offering, but ".. so that you may remember the day of your departure from the land of Egypt as long as you live."(Pesah (Eighth Day))


Myrrh

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

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Janine

The Endless Simmer
# 3337

 - Posted      Profile for Janine   Email Janine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So the comparisons and prophecies fulfilled that tie the sacrificed Jesus to the Passover lamb -- you see no idea of a sacrifice for sin there?

Even if you can't find any other connection, isn't the idea of Him being our Passover lamb enough? His being the body we consume, His being the blood that marks us, so that we are saved from pestilential avenging punishing death?

--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *

Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Janine - full stop Passover has NOTHING to do with sin offering, or repentance or atonement. It's all about freedom from slavery.

What I see wrong in PSA as being the main concept of Christ's death, besides that it makes God a heathenish one who requires blood sacrifices which the prophets denounce and Jeremiah specifically says God didn't give them these sacrifices at Mt Sinai, is that it makes God an ijit, who can't tell one day from another. If God meant that as the main concept it is illogical that he ignored Yom Kippur and chose Passover.

Sure, all kinds of views of what freedom means can be, quite reasonably, read into Passover including PSA if you believe that's your God (and I don't), but the overwhelming meaning is freedom and interestingly, we drink the blood too in remembering Christ in the eucharist, the Passover lamb has to have the blood spilled on the ground "as water".


Myrrh

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

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Janine - full stop Passover has NOTHING to do with sin offering, or repentance or atonement. It's all about freedom from slavery.

What I see wrong in PSA as being the main concept of Christ's death, besides that it makes God a heathenish one who requires blood sacrifices which the prophets denounce and Jeremiah specifically says God didn't give them these sacrifices at Mt Sinai, is that it makes God an ijit, who can't tell one day from another. If God meant that as the main concept it is illogical that he ignored Yom Kippur and chose Passover.

Sure, all kinds of views of what freedom means can be, quite reasonably, read into Passover including PSA if you believe that's your God (and I don't), but the overwhelming meaning is freedom and interestingly, we drink the blood too in remembering Christ in the eucharist, the Passover lamb has to have the blood spilled on the ground "as water".


Myrrh

You should tell Paul then. He says in 1Cor 5:7 "Christ our Passover was also SACRIFICED."

--------------------
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
craigb
Shipmate
# 11318

 - Posted      Profile for craigb   Author's homepage   Email craigb   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
G'day Jamat,

Ables sacrifice was accepted by God because of his timeliness in making it from the best of his first fruits - not because it was a animal sacrifice. Cains sacrifice was not accepted because it was not first fruits, and in a way was grudgingly given / or the fruit offered was substandard for Scripture says of the incident that in the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil.

Scripture does not support that Cains sacrifice was not accepted because it was not an animal sacrifice.

This story supports the CV stance more so than PSA as Jesus was Gods first fruit made sacrifice by men.

Posts: 993 | From: Tahmoor | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by craigb:
G'day Jamat,

Ables sacrifice was accepted by God because of his timeliness in making it from the best of his first fruits - not because it was a animal sacrifice. Cains sacrifice was not accepted because it was not first fruits, and in a way was grudgingly given / or the fruit offered was substandard for Scripture says of the incident that in the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil.

Scripture does not support that Cains sacrifice was not accepted because it was not an animal sacrifice.

This story supports the CV stance more so than PSA as Jesus was Gods first fruit made sacrifice by men.

Hi Craig,
Don't agree,sorry. The separation of man and God was the issue, Blood sacrifice was the reconnection device. Virtually, the whole of scripture supports this. It is the rationale for he whole Mosaic system. Where does it say Cain's fruits weren't 'first' fruits anyway?

--------------------
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
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You should tell Paul then. He says in 1Cor 5:7 "Christ our Passover was also SACRIFICED."

The Passover lamb is a sacrifice, (but so is using bread, fruits, incense) - it's not a sacrifice for sin offering.

Myrrh

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

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807

 - Posted      Profile for sharktacos   Author's homepage   Email sharktacos   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Thank you, sharktacos. Excellently put.

But I wonder about this:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
The victory motif is a liberation motif. He is crucifying the law here which had condemned us. He is not in this appeasing the law, he is killing it. Like us the law dies to the sin in it, so that it can rise to become the servant of love.

I don't disagree with this, but I'm wondering what you mean by "the law." I referred above to the new perspective on Paul, which indicates that "the law" here is the ritual law, not the actual laws of right and wrong that are taught in the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and elsewhere both in the OT and the NT.

I do agree that these laws are the servant of love - since love necessarily entails obeying them.

What is your thinking on this?

I'm thinking Paul means good laws, that have the purpose of leading us to love, that have become fallen and produce death.

--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/

Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807

 - Posted      Profile for sharktacos   Author's homepage   Email sharktacos   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Are you saying that spiritual powers cannot be external? ('Cos if so, then I would think that you'd be pretty novel in that.)

You are using the word "external" completely different then I was with my original quote. I meant it in reference to legal acquittal as "detached" "disconnected" "irrelevant" "superficial".

As far as Demons go, my position would be somewhere between Greg Boyd, C Peter Wagner, and Walter Wink.

--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/

Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807

 - Posted      Profile for sharktacos   Author's homepage   Email sharktacos   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Janine - full stop Passover has NOTHING to do with sin offering, or repentance or atonement. It's all about freedom from slavery.

You are correct about this. It was a covenant of solidarity with God. Jesus says that he is offering a "new covenant" in his blood.

At the same time though, there is the symbolism of passover, in the midst of the larger context of being about liberation of God's people out of bondage, that the blood of the passover lamb on the door as a sign of one's covenant with God did turn away the angel of wrath. The question is why. I'd say because blood - whether it was for atonement or passover or dedicating the Torah or a thank offering or whatever - always has the purpose of sanctification.

--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/

Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[QB] Hmmm... Perhaps I should explain why I find PSA so unsatisfying as a model:

quote:
PSA offers a clear rationale for blood sacrifice, particularly propitiary sacrifice.
Only by back-reading penal substitution into the OT sacrifice model
Did you take in my mention several posts back ,of the Edenic couple needing to be clothed in skins? also the reason Abel's sacrifice was accepted and Cain's not?
Not a back readinding..to me intrinsic.

And where, exactly, in the story is there any mention of the animal skins coming from a sacrifice? This is blatent reading-in. Ditto Cain and Abel - you offer a hypothesis as to why Abel's sacrifice was accepted, but no actual backing for it - more reading-in.

quote:
If you don't like the God of the OT scriptures and write him off as a genocidal maniac, who's got the problem? The OT God was the only God Jesus was connected with.
"Don't like" - "write him off"?

OK. Let me take you through a thought exercise.

You are three years old. You live in a city. Outside there is an enemy army. One day, the walls fall in. Men rush into the city.

Your mother barricades the doors, and huddles you and your ten month old brother in the corner. The door starts to shake as a soldier pushes it in. The barricade is no defence.

Two men spring into the room. One takes his sword and in front of you tears your baby brother from his mother's arms and kills him. He turns to your mother and plunges his sword into her weeping form. As she turns to you, you see in her dying eyes her horror as the other soldier lifts his sword and plunges it at you. You feel the terrific pain as the sword enters your ribcage. Blood pours up through your mouth. The room fades, and you know no more.

Now, tell me, AS THAT THREE YEAR OLD CHILD, that these men are doing God's work. Tell me that this God is the loving, merciful Father that Our Lord Jesus Christ taught about. And try to do it without feeling the massive cognitive dissonance it has to create, unless you're a master of doublethink.

I used to try to believe that. But I realised it was 1984 Christianity. I believed it because I was too scared to believe otherwise. I forced myself not to confront the obvious. But it is obvious.

We do not successfully combat Marcionism by pretending the problem which gave rise to it does not exist. It does. It is very real.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
We do not successfully combat Marcionism by pretending the problem which gave rise to it does not exist. It does. It is very real.

Ah, the issue.

You're right Karl it cannot be ignored. However, unless you want to turn your back on the historic church the answer is not found in jettisoning the OT.

I think this whole debate would move forward much further if, on both sides [Hot and Hormonal] , we were a bit more willing to wrestle over passages of scripture. (Instead of just claiming them all for 'our' camp.)

I bumped into Gordon McConville (Professor of OT) in the pub a few weeks ago and asked him about the 'kpr' word group in the OT - is it propitiation or expiation? His considered response was - difficult to be certain!

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not up for jettisoning the OT. What I am up for is rejecting the idea that we can just pull something from it (like hanging Saul's sons for Saul's crimes, as Jamat did earlier) and saying "Look. That's the sort of thing God thinks is just, that is. You should agree with Him or else."

If you're at all interested, I don't think the Joshua genocides actually happened, historically. I think they're a bolted on origins myth. They're a vital background to ancient Israel's identity as the chosen people, given the land by God for a purpose, but actually I have a sneaking suspicion that my three year old child grew up into a big strapping lad, and had children whose own children, at least, considered themselves Israelite [Biased]

I also have a sneaking suspicion that when the "Book of the Law" was allegedly found during the Temple spring cleaning, the ink was suspiciously damp. But again, it's only a suspicion.

But this is getting very tangential.

[ 17. August 2007, 08:48: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by craigb:
G'day Jamat,

Ables sacrifice was accepted by God because of his timeliness in making it from the best of his first fruits - not because it was a animal sacrifice. Cains sacrifice was not accepted because it was not first fruits, and in a way was grudgingly given / or the fruit offered was substandard for Scripture says of the incident that in the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil.

Scripture does not support that Cains sacrifice was not accepted because it was not an animal sacrifice.

This story supports the CV stance more so than PSA as Jesus was Gods first fruit made sacrifice by men.

Hi Craig,
Don't agree,sorry. The separation of man and God was the issue, Blood sacrifice was the reconnection device. Virtually, the whole of scripture supports this. It is the rationale for he whole Mosaic system. Where does it say Cain's fruits weren't 'first' fruits anyway?

Actually, Jamat, it's very strongly implied (one might almost say the obvious reading) in Gen 4: 3-5. Whilst Cain brings "some of the fruits" of his wealth, Abel brings the most valuable parts of the firstborn of his flock. I don't believe the contrast between the way the two offerings are described is accidental. Cain gave his offering after he had garnered his wealth, Abel gave sacrificially, before he had the security of knowing how his flocks would fare.

BTW, this is fairly standard evangelical exegesis of the passage. I make no claim to originality; I've heard many sermons in which the passage has been thus interpreted, from preachers of impeccable "soundness".

[ 17. August 2007, 08:51: 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
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But this is getting very tangential.

I don't think this is tangential at all. We are going to go around in circles until we agree on principles of interpretation.

For example, I'd be interested in why you don't believe the Joshua conquests really happened. There is a big difference between 'because if the evidence' and 'and don't like that kind of God.'

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
craigb
Shipmate
# 11318

 - Posted      Profile for craigb   Author's homepage   Email craigb   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hi Jamat, you asked

quote:
Where does it say Cain's fruits weren't 'first' fruits anyway?

When we read this passage,
quote:
Gen 4:3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD .
Gen 4:4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering,

it says that in the course of time, meaning some time had passed and he brought some of the fruits of the soil.

However Scripture says that Able offered fat portions of the first fruits, and nothing about Cain offering first fruits.

We get more of an insight into Cains state of mind here as we read further on,

quote:
Gen 4:5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

God was not happy with Cain, nor was he happy with his offering and Cain was angry with God. The very fact that Cain was angry shows that Cain brought an offering to the Lord under sufferance and his heart was not right before the Lord.

Also in the Mosaic law there are ample examples of various fruit and vegetable offerings that the Lord found pleasing - such as the wave offerings when the farmer would wave the first sheaf of grain before the Lord in thanksgiving. So the very fact that the Mosaic law allows fruit offerings that are pleasing to God means that it wasn't because Cain offered God some fruit that offended him.

--------------------
Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!I once was lost, but now am found; Was blind, but now I see... The Lord has promised good to me,His word my hope secures;He will my shield and portion be,As long as life endures.

Posts: 993 | From: Tahmoor | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[QB] Hmmm... Perhaps I should explain why I find PSA so unsatisfying as a model:

quote:
PSA offers a clear rationale for blood sacrifice, particularly propitiary sacrifice.
Only by back-reading penal substitution into the OT sacrifice model
Did you take in my mention several posts back ,of the Edenic couple needing to be clothed in skins? also the reason Abel's sacrifice was accepted and Cain's not?
Not a back readinding..to me intrinsic.

And where, exactly, in the story is there any mention of the animal skins coming from a sacrifice? This is blatent reading-in. Ditto Cain and Abel - you offer a hypothesis as to why Abel's sacrifice was accepted, but no actual backing for it - more reading-in.

quote:
If you don't like the God of the OT scriptures and write him off as a genocidal maniac, who's got the problem? The OT God was the only God Jesus was connected with.
"Don't like" - "write him off"?

OK. Let me take you through a thought exercise.

You are three years old. You live in a city. Outside there is an enemy army. One day, the walls fall in. Men rush into the city.

Your mother barricades the doors, and huddles you and your ten month old brother in the corner. The door starts to shake as a soldier pushes it in. The barricade is no defence.

Two men spring into the room. One takes his sword and in front of you tears your baby brother from his mother's arms and kills him. He turns to your mother and plunges his sword into her weeping form. As she turns to you, you see in her dying eyes her horror as the other soldier lifts his sword and plunges it at you. You feel the terrific pain as the sword enters your ribcage. Blood pours up through your mouth. The room fades, and you know no more.

Now, tell me, AS THAT THREE YEAR OLD CHILD, that these men are doing God's work. Tell me that this God is the loving, merciful Father that Our Lord Jesus Christ taught about. And try to do it without feeling the massive cognitive dissonance it has to create, unless you're a master of doublethink.

I used to try to believe that. But I realised it was 1984 Christianity. I believed it because I was too scared to believe otherwise. I forced myself not to confront the obvious. But it is obvious.

We do not successfully combat Marcionism by pretending the problem which gave rise to it does not exist. It does. It is very real.

Not reading in, clear inference. Somewhere an animal died to clothe them. Very possible God killed the animal is a sacrifice especially in view of the enduring principle of sacrifice undeniable in the OT from Genesis on. To me it stares you in the face. To you there is a problem..not what you WANT to believe.

OK Karl I can see the vivid horror of the scene you have painted. What about this scenario

A race of people of Canaanite origin is shot through with idol worship. They practice human sacrifice and are deeply disconnected from God. Perhaps they are shot through with STDs as a result of sexual practices. Perhaps too there is a hybridity similar to what happened in Ge 6 that motivated the flood judgement. There is mention of 'Anakim' and Og of Bashan was clearly a giant. What if God in his foreknowledge sees where the world is heading unless he intervenes?

What if the alternative to killing humanity off completely is to cut out the 'cancer' endemic to this people group? I am always intrigued by the phrase, "The iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full," Suggesting God delayed the Exodus to give this people group every chance. Balaam, you recall, was a Babylonian astrologer through whom God spoke so the word of the Lord was not totally confined to Israel.

Imagine a scenario then, where the most merciful solution to a problem is to wipe out the Canaanite race. It would be, of course untinkable if a Genghis Khan or a Hitler or a Stalin did it but the one who decides is not a piece of clay, he is the potter himself.

Does he not have the right?

We may not understand his reasons but can we not trust him to have them? Or must we judge with our fallen human minds instead of trusting that he is loving in his motives and just in his dealings even if we can't grasp these things.

His ways in fact are not ours.

Now Perhaps he is limited in his actions by another factor. The Christ has not come. There is no indwelling Holy Spirit and Mankind is heading down the path of Spritism and Barbaric violence.

God's solution is to build a particular nation that differs from all the others by modelling his laws and ways. This is his plan for the time. He knows they will fail and that it is a temporary solution but it is what he decides. He uses this raised up a nation to execute his judgements in order to preserve humanity in toto.

This nation, the Jews, are set apart by the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants which point down the ages to the Christ, the promised seed whose net effect will be to avoid the necessity for the drastic judgements of the past.

--------------------
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
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by craigb:
Hi Jamat, you asked

quote:
Where does it say Cain's fruits weren't 'first' fruits anyway?

When we read this passage,
quote:
Gen 4:3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD .
Gen 4:4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering,

it says that in the course of time, meaning some time had passed and he brought some of the fruits of the soil.

However Scripture says that Able offered fat portions of the first fruits, and nothing about Cain offering first fruits.

We get more of an insight into Cains state of mind here as we read further on,

quote:
Gen 4:5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

God was not happy with Cain, nor was he happy with his offering and Cain was angry with God. The very fact that Cain was angry shows that Cain brought an offering to the Lord under sufferance and his heart was not right before the Lord.

Also in the Mosaic law there are ample examples of various fruit and vegetable offerings that the Lord found pleasing - such as the wave offerings when the farmer would wave the first sheaf of grain before the Lord in thanksgiving. So the very fact that the Mosaic law allows fruit offerings that are pleasing to God means that it wasn't because Cain offered God some fruit that offended him.

Nowhere says Cain's fruits weren't first fruits only that Abel's were. I prefer my view.

--------------------
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
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by craigb:
G'day Jamat,

Ables sacrifice was accepted by God because of his timeliness in making it from the best of his first fruits - not because it was a animal sacrifice. Cains sacrifice was not accepted because it was not first fruits, and in a way was grudgingly given / or the fruit offered was substandard for Scripture says of the incident that in the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil.

Scripture does not support that Cains sacrifice was not accepted because it was not an animal sacrifice.

This story supports the CV stance more so than PSA as Jesus was Gods first fruit made sacrifice by men.

Hi Craig,
Don't agree,sorry. The separation of man and God was the issue, Blood sacrifice was the reconnection device. Virtually, the whole of scripture supports this. It is the rationale for he whole Mosaic system. Where does it say Cain's fruits weren't 'first' fruits anyway?

Actually, Jamat, it's very strongly implied (one might almost say the obvious reading) in Gen 4: 3-5. Whilst Cain brings "some of the fruits" of his wealth, Abel brings the most valuable parts of the firstborn of his flock. I don't believe the contrast between the way the two offerings are described is accidental. Cain gave his offering after he had garnered his wealth, Abel gave sacrificially, before he had the security of knowing how his flocks would fare.

BTW, this is fairly standard evangelical exegesis of the passage. I make no claim to originality; I've heard many sermons in which the passage has been thus interpreted, from preachers of impeccable "soundness".

Sounds suspiciously like 'assertion' JJ.

--------------------
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
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Sounds suspiciously like 'assertion' JJ.

Well at least it's assertion based on what the text actually says. There is absolutely no basis for an assertion that blood sacrifices only were acceptable to God, still less that blood sacrifices were in any way associated with the animals being punished instead of their owners.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But this is getting very tangential.

I don't think this is tangential at all. We are going to go around in circles until we agree on principles of interpretation.

For example, I'd be interested in why you don't believe the Joshua conquests really happened. There is a big difference between 'because if the evidence' and 'and don't like that kind of God.'

Archaeological evidence of the conquests is debatable to say the least. It's not simply "I don't like that kind of God", but also that "That kind of God is not like the God revealed in Christ" - nor even revealed elsewhere in the OT. If I were convinced that God were that type of God, I could simply say "No thanks", not wanting anything to do with Him. I probably wouldn't, through moral cowardice, but that's by the by. At face value, we have a people told not 40 years earlier "Thou shalt not commit murder", being commanded to commit mass murder. As Abraham said, "shall not the judge of the world act justly?"; similarly, "shall not the very embodiment of goodness act in the manner He Himself has said is good?".

Which reminds me also of the Saul's Sons thing. This so-called "justice" system Jamat draws our attention to is condemned in the Mosaic Law and in the prophet Ezekiel!. The Mosaic Law says that a father shall not be put to death for the sins of his sons, nor a son for the sins of the father. Ezekiel has a long passage saying the same thing.

This is why I find the "A God you don't like" thing a bit strange - who is going to like a God who orders genocide? It's not like some personal peccadillo, not liking genocide. It's not that I want "A God I like" (as is often the accusation), but rather one that isn't actually morally repugnant.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  ...  67  68  69 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools