|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Christus Victor
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
What do others think about the charge that CV, when used as a medical metaphor, loses a sense of responsibility for sin?
Depends whether you think that the aim is to remedy the situation or to assign blame and then exact retribution.
Question: Does God demand retribution for each sin? I don't believe it. Mainly because I see no moral virtue in it, and would not accept it as a good way to relate to one's own children. But in any case, in classical augustinian theology (to avoid the C-word) the retribution is also for the sin of Adam for which we are not responsible.
Before you say I'm judging God by human standards, we all do that. If you believe God is morally perfect and that he demands retribution for each sin then you must believe this is part of what ethical perfection is. I don't. And as with genocide, if the Bible teaches it, then the Bible is to that extent unacceptable. I don't think anyone who thinks about their faith believes things of God which they also hold to be reprehensible.
I also see no virtue in submitting one's will to the writings defined as canonical by the Church. As implied by someone earlier, I think it's a cop out.
So if you are aguing based on the final authority of scripture, and I'm arguing based on an absolutist ethical position, we may end up talking past each other. But not for long. I off on hols tomorrow.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:
What do others think about the charge that CV, when used as a medical metaphor, loses a sense of responsibility for sin?
Depends whether you think that the aim is to remedy the situation or to assign blame and then exact retribution.
Enjoy your hols. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I didn't say anything about retribution. That is another matter. For now all I asked about was accepting blame for things we do wrong.
It is a slight tangent but I would argue, looking at society at large, that an essential part of finding a remedy is accepting responsibility for our circumstances.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
Johnny,
I think you raise two very important points.
First the issue of the medical model leading to a deemphasis on responsibility. I think today people (both inside and outside of the church) tend to see themselves as victims more than they do as guilty. this is real need that needs to be addressed. People really are abused and broken by tragedy and evil in their lives. At the same time though part of that healing process involves taking hold of our own lives and owning up to our own responsibility.
A medical model as we conceive of it today does imply a lack of responsibility for many. I would propose two correctives to this:
First, on a social science level the idea of mental illness (and we are talking primarily about sin in these terms as "soul sickness" as opposed to physical sickness) very much involves the idea of responsibility as a major factor in the healing process. A person cannot change until they are willing to change. Though we cannot help what has been done to us, we do need to take our lives into our hands and work to not be a victim. That is a hallmark of the path towards mental health and healing.
Secondly, if we are to claim that Scripture offers a "medical" model, then we need to understand that in the terms that Scripture does rather than imposing our own worldview of sickness into it. For Jesus sickness was not associated with germs, but with Satan. For example he refers to the woman with a blood hemorrhage as "being kept in bondage by Satan for these many years". In "God at War" Greg Boyd chronicles how over and over Jesus associates physical sickness with demonic bondage. In fact Jesus saw physical sickness, poverty, and sinful actions all as being related to Satanic bondage. So if we are to take this view of "medical" then we need to understand it in the context of bondage. Further, Scripturally, bondage always has an aspect of our own culpability. Israel was sent into exile as a result of their sins. Bondage and our own guilt are intertwined. So to have a "medical" view that is biblical involves a complex picture of sickness/bondage/responsibility. What I am stressing here by mentioning the medical model is not to deny the importance of being responsible (even if we are not always at fault, we still need to seek life) but to highlight that our problem is not an external one of God being mad, but an internal one of our having this enslaving blackness inside of us that we need to be liberated from.
The second point you raise is the idea of Christ the "victor" being an excuse for justifying violence. Again I would suggest that an understanding of the demonic is crucial. Our battle is "not against flesh and blood". But beyond this the way that this victory over evil is won is not through conquest and force but by God acting in humility and kenosis. We need to keep this "upside-down" perspective in mind with every part of our atonement theories. Justice comes through a great injustice. Christ wins by losing. God's might is in weakness. God is "satisfied" by giving up allowing himself to be wronged.
Luther calls this "God hidden in his opposite". We need to apply this "backwards" thinking to every aspect of the atonement - to CV and to PSA in order to in this "foolishness" comprehend the scandalous true wisdom of God. Complex? Yup. But that the only way to grasp what Paul means when he says, "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him."
p.s. When I said you look like Mandela, I was looking at your avatar.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Passover was a blood sacrifice. It was not a specific sin offering but in the OT it is blood that covers sin and blood that cleanses. This is clearly confirmed by the Hebrews writer who associates Christ's shed blood with our cleansing. Christ died during the Passover feast. Ergo, the sin offering, which he was, is associated with Passover and identified with it. Not saying Passover in its original form was not about liberation and redemption, only that there is a dovetailing of it with the 'Christ as a sacrifice for sin' teaching.
PSA proponents have a right to reasonably make these connections in their exegesis.
I did say that PSA could reasonably be read into Passover, because Passover is an all encompassing freedom and certainly some in the NT (hebrews) saw it as that and associated the sacrificial lamb with Yom Kippur. But this is out of their own 'requirement' for freedom, lamb is not even one of the sacrifices specific to Yom Kippur, only there (two lambs) in the usual daily sacrifice.
Passover is not specifically a sin offering, has nothing to do with sin offering, and for those not holding to belief in such a God which requires blood sacrifice before he'll forgive (as taught in both the NT and OT as I posted earlier), PSA cannot be insisted on as a doctrine to be held by Christians because PSA contradicts God's choice of Passover. If God had chosen Yom Kippur it would be more difficult to argue this point...
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:
What do others think about the charge that CV, when used as a medical metaphor, loses a sense of responsibility for sin?
Depends whether you think that the aim is to remedy the situation or to assign blame and then exact retribution.
Enjoy your hols.
I didn't say anything about retribution. That is another matter. For now all I asked about was accepting blame for things we do wrong.
It is a slight tangent but I would argue, looking at society at large, that an essential part of finding a remedy is accepting responsibility for our circumstances.
Estrangement from God and unity with Him as a medical problem comes from the Orthodox Church's teaching which includes the ongoing practice of repentance and forgiveness of sins, responsibility is a given.
The Church as hospital is the Orthodox Church's doctrine. This phrase has been taken up by other Christian systems where it loses its original context because core theology is different.
For example, the RCC picked it up in the last century from the Melkite imput into Roman Catholicism and is one of the Orthodox views introduced by the Melkites which are now colouring the RCC catechism, where for example change of emphasis of the Orginal Sin doctrine is seen (Orthodox don't have the OS doctrine). Now unbaptised babies dying 'are given up the the mercy of God' instead of the centuries dogmatised tradition that they went permanently into the eternal damnation they were born in and which only baptism could save them from. Anyway, the Orthodox who see the Church as a hospital don't have a juridical relationship with God as the RCC have so use of the term will naturally mean something different to each.
I'm struggling to imagine what the phrase could mean to those who view God as requiring payment in blood before he'll forgive sins..
(Orthodox God is good, ever merciful, ever forgiving, love not hate (not requiring sacrifice) - the hospital is where this God is worshipped and healing is the practice of becoming this God.)
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Secondly, if we are to claim that Scripture offers a "medical" model, then we need to understand that in the terms that Scripture does rather than imposing our own worldview of sickness into it. For Jesus sickness was not associated with germs, but with Satan. For example he refers to the woman with a blood hemorrhage as "being kept in bondage by Satan for these many years". In "God at War" Greg Boyd chronicles how over and over Jesus associates physical sickness with demonic bondage. In fact Jesus saw physical sickness, poverty, and sinful actions all as being related to Satanic bondage. So if we are to take this view of "medical" then we need to understand it in the context of bondage. Further, Scripturally, bondage always has an aspect of our own culpability. Israel was sent into exile as a result of their sins. Bondage and our own guilt are intertwined. So to have a "medical" view that is biblical involves a complex picture of sickness/bondage/responsibility. What I am stressing here by mentioning the medical model is not to deny the importance of being responsible (even if we are not always at fault, we still need to seek life) but to highlight that our problem is not an external one of God being mad, but an internal one of our having this enslaving blackness inside of us that we need to be liberated from.
You've just created another problem for yourself. If you look at the 'Spiritual Warfare' thread (I don't know how to link to it) then you'll see how popular bringing in 'demons' is! (Blame it on the devil is just an alternative to blame it on my illness.) Now I know that you have described it in internal ways (so not like the 'Spiritual Warfare' thread) but I don't see how you can do that from the teaching of Jesus. I find the story of 'Legion and the Pigs' (Mark 5) rather bizarre but the one point that is clear is that these demons are not purely internal - otherwise how can they exist outside of the man?
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
The second point you raise is the idea of Christ the "victor" being an excuse for justifying violence. Again I would suggest that an understanding of the demonic is crucial. Our battle is "not against flesh and blood". But beyond this the way that this victory over evil is won is not through conquest and force but by God acting in humility and kenosis. We need to keep this "upside-down" perspective in mind with every part of our atonement theories. Justice comes through a great injustice. Christ wins by losing. God's might is in weakness. God is "satisfied" by giving up allowing himself to be wronged.
Yes I get all that, and agree with it. My point is that PSA teaches that we must not engage in retribution but instead leave it up to God. You claim that PSA is unhelpful as a model because the picture used will cause us to value retribution.
If that is the case then we have the same problem with CV. We use the model counter-intuitively. I'm happy with that, but therefore the concept must work both ways.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you look at the 'Spiritual Warfare' thread (I don't know how to link to it) then you'll see how popular bringing in 'demons' is! (Blame it on the devil is just an alternative to blame it on my illness.) Now I know that you have described it in internal ways (so not like the 'Spiritual Warfare' thread) but I don't see how you can do that from the teaching of Jesus. I find the story of 'Legion and the Pigs' (Mark 5) rather bizarre but the one point that is clear is that these demons are not purely internal - otherwise how can they exist outside of the man?
Johnny, I'm a little puzzled by how you are using the word "internal." Are you saying that the demons in that story were visible and tangible?
My understanding of the word is that something internal is invisible and exists within something else. Jesus said that the kingdom of God, for example, is "within you." This means that its existence is really in the realm of peoples loves and thoughts. It is an internal kingdom.
Why couldn't the demons move from within the man to within the pigs? Isn't that what the story says?
Or do you have a different understanding of the word "internal"? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Johnny, I'm a little puzzled by how you are using the word "internal." Are you saying that the demons in that story were visible and tangible?
No.
My thoughts / emotions etc. are all internal in the sense that it is meaningless to talk about them being outside of me.
Mark 5 describes the demons as separate entities to the man, they may well have been 'internal' to the man but it was possible for them to leave the man and enter the pigs. The demons were separate 'beings' to the man and in that sense were not purely internal.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Mark 5 describes the demons as separate entities to the man, they may well have been 'internal' to the man but it was possible for them to leave the man and enter the pigs. The demons were separate 'beings' to the man and in that sense were not purely internal.
I see.
Are you sure that this is the only way to understand "internal" things? Do you see internal things as necessarily intrinsic to the person?
The biblical understanding, I believe, is that demons and angels are internal in the sense that, although they are not the person himself or herself, they can be within a person and influence him or her from within. Do you see it differently?
--------------------
"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:
The biblical understanding, I believe, is that demons and angels are internal in the sense that, although they are not the person himself or herself, they can be within a person and influence him or her from within. Do you see it differently?
Which is why I kept putting the word 'purely' in italics as in purely internal. Of course there is an internal dimension but we were talking about atonement models and whether they are about fighting sin as something that is alien to us or very much a part of our nature.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Which is why I kept putting the word 'purely' in italics as in purely internal. Of course there is an internal dimension but we were talking about atonement models and whether they are about fighting sin as something that is alien to us or very much a part of our nature.
I understand this. The question is whether sin is alien to us or is a part of our nature.
Your questions make me wonder if you understand how CV is supposed to work.
The idea, I think, is that there are spiritual forces that affect every person from within. These forces are not the person, but they work within the person. God helps us to overcome the forces that would guide us to do evil.
Your view seems to be that everything that is internal to a person is the person himself or herself. Is that 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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Your view seems to be that everything that is internal to a person is the person himself or herself. Is that right?
No.
My point is precisely that it is more complicated than that.
Take the analogy of a drug addict. To what degree is the addiction due to the drug or the desires of the user? To what degree are they the victim? Where does responsbility lie?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My point is precisely that it is more complicated than that.
Take the analogy of a drug addict. To what degree is the addiction due to the drug or the desires of the user? To what degree are they the victim? Where does responsbility lie?
I agree that it is complicated. Obviously many factors converge. To some extent a person is a victim. To some extent they are responsible. It is not an either/or situation. Freedom is not an absolute qantity - you can be more free or less free.
The idea behind CV is that God helps you to overcome things like drug addiction, taking into account all of the factors involved.
So sin is something that preys on us. We are its victims. At the same time, we are responsible for it as well because we are free to choose whether to listen to it or not. It's complicated because many factors are involved.
At the core, however, we are free beings with the ability to choose to accept or reject God's aid. CV describes how He aids us.
How do you see it?
[ 20. August 2007, 15:29: 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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So sin is something that preys on us. We are its victims. At the same time, we are responsible for it as well because we are free to choose whether to listen to it or not. It's complicated because many factors are involved.
At the core, however, we are free beings with the ability to choose to accept or reject God's aid. CV describes how He aids us.
How do you see it?
I view it pretty much the same and hence find CV only partially helpful as a metaphor. In the sense that sin is alien to me then I find it easy to picture Christ fighting sin on my behalf. However, in the sense that sin is part of me (a voluntary decision of my will) then the image of CV means that Christ must be fighting me. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, in the sense that sin is part of me (a voluntary decision of my will) then the image of CV means that Christ must be fighting me.
So this gets to the question of what you, essentially, are?
Christ does not fight us. Don't forget that we, essentially, are nothing. Isn't that what Christ teaches? Or is it just that without Him we can do nothing?
As I see it, we are nothing of ourselves. Everything that goes into making us up come from outside of us. Either we allow God to form us into something good, or we allow hell to form us into something evil. Most likely we are mixture of both. Either way, the only part of us that is actually "us" is what we have freely chosen.
To me, this solves it. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
How do you see 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
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
What Fred said.
Johnny I think the difficulty is you are taking the motif "victor" and just running with it. The same could happen if one were to hear "God is love" and just run with that. There are many assumptions we have about what love is and what victory is that make this problematic. Instead we need to look at the complex picture of this victory that the Bible gives us to get behind what is being said (same with love).
The actual theory of CV does contain this complexity. When you reduce it down to a single metaphor, you are not correctly representing the theory.
There are elements of sin being a bondage we need to be liberated from, of this bondage effecting us internally and shaping who we are, of our need not only for liberation but a change in identity and allegiance, of our own responsibility in all of this as well as our victimization. Reality is complex and so is CV.
As far as God being our enemy, I would say that he is. Paul says "while we were God's enemies..." but goes on to agree with Jesus that God loves his enemies. Our enmity is conquered by grace, and in the same way the authorities and powers and wrath are all conquered and redeemed by grace.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So sin is something that preys on us. We are its victims. At the same time, we are responsible for it as well because we are free to choose whether to listen to it or not. It's complicated because many factors are involved.
At the core, however, we are free beings with the ability to choose to accept or reject God's aid. CV describes how He aids us.
How do you see it?
I view it pretty much the same and hence find CV only partially helpful as a metaphor. In the sense that sin is alien to me then I find it easy to picture Christ fighting sin on my behalf. However, in the sense that sin is part of me (a voluntary decision of my will) then the image of CV means that Christ must be fighting me.
--------------------
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 Freddy:
As I see it, we are nothing of ourselves. Everything that goes into making us up come from outside of us. Either we allow God to form us into something good, or we allow hell to form us into something evil. Most likely we are mixture of both. Either way, the only part of us that is actually "us" is what we have freely chosen.
We've been here before. I think your view of salvation is dualistic. Being human is about more than just a tussle between opposing forces of good and evil.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Johnny I think the difficulty is you are taking the motif "victor" and just running with it.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
We're going round in circles.
I know that is what I'm doing with CV. My point concerns the major reason why people want to ditch PSA - they refuse to accept a nuanced view of PSA (something similar to Numpty's one) but simply take the 'retribution' motif and run with it. If you respond (quite rightly IMO) as you do to the way I treated CV just then, then why are you suprised when others do the same over PSA?
BTW - While I believe in the devil and demons, as I posted earlier I can see big problems with overstressing Christ's victory against the devil. I think it is trying to turn back the clock to before Anselm and, like Freddy, is ultimately dualistic in view.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think your view of salvation is dualistic. Being human is about more than just a tussle between opposing forces of good and evil.
Is dualistic a bad thing? Doesn't the Bible teach that there is a conflict between the forces of God and "the power of darkness"?
I don't think that the Christian version of a tussle between opposing forces is anything like Manichean. The biblical view, I think, is that God has all power, and evil has no power. The only power evil has is due to humanity's tendency to give in to the allures of the senses, wealth, power, and the "subtle" arguments of the serpent.
Is this what you are calling dualistic?
--------------------
"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 Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Johnny I think the difficulty is you are taking the motif "victor" and just running with it.
We're going round in circles.
I know that is what I'm doing with CV. My point concerns the major reason why people want to ditch PSA - they refuse to accept a nuanced view of PSA (something similar to Numpty's one) but simply take the 'retribution' motif and run with it. If you respond (quite rightly IMO) as you do to the way I treated CV just then, then why are you suprised when others do the same over PSA?
J, we agree that we need to critique the most sophisticated view of a theory. As you say, this is not what you are doing with CV. From your response it sounds like you are purposely misrepresenting the CV theory. If that is the case I don't see how a conversation is possible with someone who is trying to misunderstand.
As far as your "critique" it does not stick because I am not trying to misrepresent PSA, and in fact disagree with a sophisticated version of it (for example that of John Stott).
--------------------
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:
From your response it sounds like you are purposely misrepresenting the CV theory. If that is the case I don't see how a conversation is possible with someone who is trying to misunderstand.
No, I'm not trying to misrepresent anything. I'm trying to put CV under the same kind of critical evaluation that we did to PSA some 20 pages and several threads previously. I think that is only fair.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
All I can say is that CV is not simply an out of context slogan like "victory". So in representing it as such you are not addressing any real version of the theory.
I'm a bit at a loss as to where to go from here. I also do not see why presenting a false version of a theory has anything to do with critically and vigorously reviewing it. How is anything but a straw man fallacy?
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Johnny, it's not that we don't welcome critiques of CV. I have been more than happy to critique PSA. I don't think, though, that the crtiques of PSA have been restricted to straw men or caricatures of it, as sharktacos pointed out.
It still seems to me that you are not really catching how CV works. Are you more settled now about how the word "internal" is used?
--------------------
"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:
It still seems to me that you are not really catching how CV works. Are you more settled now about how the word "internal" is used?
Apparently not. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I still don't see how CV (on its own) defeats sin in a way that also enables me to take responsibility for my sin.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It still seems to me that you are not really catching how CV works. Are you more settled now about how the word "internal" is used?
Apparently not.
I still don't see how CV (on its own) defeats sin in a way that also enables me to take responsibility for my sin.
Because it is not either/or.
Think of the example you gave of addiction. Addiction is BOTH something that enslaves AND something for which a person needs to take responsibility.
PSA involves 2 players: us and God.
CV is not restricted to 2 players (God and the devil) but 3 players: us, the devil, and God.
That view takes into account the role God plays and the role the demonic plays, AND the role we play. So responsibility is in there.
We are slaves to sin and NOT able to take responsibility for our lives. Our problem is not God being mad, but our sin and enslavement. So we need to fix the problem of our sinful enslavement, not the problem of a mad God.
With Jesus liberating us from the devil (who we were enslaved to in part because of our guilt, in part because of other people's guilt, and in part because of general falleness), and thus giving us a new identity in Christ, we can then IN Christ be "set free" so we CAN choose to live in Jesus and take responsibility.
--------------------
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 still don't see how CV (on its own) defeats sin in a way that also enables me to take responsibility for my sin.
The idea, as I understand it, is that Christ's defeat of sin makes it possible for us, if we are willing, with Christ's help, to defeat it in our own lives.
So we are still responsible.
This is in accord with many statements that Christ makes, which urge us to trust in Him and keep His commandments, these being the only means of gaining our freedom. He says:
quote:
John 8:31 “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
John 15:4 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. 5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. 8 By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples.
9 “As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. 10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love."
These sayings make it clear, I think, that it is Christ who frees us and overcomes sin in our lives, and yet that we are responsible to believe in Him and obey Him.
--------------------
"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
Johnny, what is our responsibility in PSA? What must we do?
--------------------
"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:
PSA involves 2 players: us and God.
CV is not restricted to 2 players (God and the devil) but 3 players: us, the devil, and God.
That view takes into account the role God plays and the role the demonic plays, AND the role we play. So responsibility is in there.
No it isn't.
I don't think you understand my comments about models. I'm not deliberately misunderstanding CV and I'm not setting up straw men. I'm trying to handle CV as a model in a fair way and in a similar way to the way we have looked at PSA.
In the CV model Jesus fights for us, we have no responsibility. I know that is not true for how you articulate CV but my argument is that you have to go elsewhere than the model itself for that justification. I do not see what role WE have to play in CV, as a model.
Again, I want to say very clearly, I am not accusing you of that inconsistency (your view of the atonement seems very clear) just that you have not demonstrated how this comes from CV and is not simply presumed as a sort of 'hang over' from PSA and other models.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Johnny, what is our responsibility in PSA? What must we do?
PSA has responsibility for sin at it's very core. As Jesus dies so sentence is pronounced on all our sin. Believing that must mean accepting responsibility for my attitudes and actions, I accept that this is what I deserve. The verdict is 'guilty' and I accept that verdict.
Consequently, there is also huge motivation to change my life in the future too - whenever I am tempted to sin I am struck by the sense in which that is adding to Christ's burden on the cross. (I appreciate that there are chronological problems with that but then PSA is not a 'temporal' model.)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
PSA involves 2 players: us and God.
CV is not restricted to 2 players (God and the devil) but 3 players: us, the devil, and God.
That view takes into account the role God plays and the role the demonic plays, AND the role we play. So responsibility is in there.
No it isn't.
I don't think you understand my comments about models. I'm not deliberately misunderstanding CV and I'm not setting up straw men. I'm trying to handle CV as a model in a fair way and in a similar way to the way we have looked at PSA.
In the CV model Jesus fights for us, we have no responsibility. I know that is not true for how you articulate CV but my argument is that you have to go elsewhere than the model itself for that justification. I do not see what role WE have to play in CV, as a model.
Again, I want to say very clearly, I am not accusing you of that inconsistency (your view of the atonement seems very clear) just that you have not demonstrated how this comes from CV and is not simply presumed as a sort of 'hang over' from PSA and other models.
Strictly speaking no atonement model covers what we must do because atonement models by definition focus on what God did. Salvation models say what we must do. So both PSA and CV attach themselves to the same basic salvation model that on God has done his work (the atonement) our "work" is to repent and believe, by faith through grace. There is no inherent "our part" in either PSA or CV.
Now of course in practice we apply what we see of God's actions (atonement) to how we respond to God (salvation). You for example say you do not want to sin because you do not want to hurt God. I agree with this, and stress that one could make the same conclusion from CV because CV INCLUDES substitutionary atonement as its mechanism for victory. It is victory THROUGH bearing our sin and suffering. CV in itself is the complex model. To think of CV as just "victory" minus the substitutionary atonement part, or just about the devil and not us, is not CV.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
So in more direct answer to your question, CV could say all the things you did, and add to it that because we had been brought out of slavery we do not wish to lose that freedom, and that because God gave us an example of self-sacrificing love of enemies we are to imitate him by taking up our own cross and practicing humility grace and forgiveness. In that way CV ties the cross to the whole ministry and teaching of Jesus, while PSA has a tendency to do the opposite. As a result CV implies a life of service and acts of justice, while PSA often focuses only on our getting to heaven.
--------------------
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:
CV INCLUDES substitutionary atonement as its mechanism for victory. It is victory THROUGH bearing our sin and suffering.
Ummh. I like that but I still think you've work to do in showing why CV is necessarily substitionary. Note, I'm not demanding the full mechanics of how it works, just an explanation of why CV is substitionary. Why does Jesus dying in our place bring about atonement?
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
In that way CV ties the cross to the whole ministry and teaching of Jesus, while PSA has a tendency to do the opposite. As a result CV implies a life of service and acts of justice, while PSA often focuses only on our getting to heaven.
You see it is that word 'tendency' that bothers me. It is no different from me saying that CV, without the proper biblical qualifications, has a tendency to minimise our responsibility. All you're saying is that models need to be seen alongside the full sweep of scripture, but we are agreed on that already. Nobody on this thread wants to make PSA (or CV I hope) an exhaustive summary of the gospel. We are discussing models which are elements of it.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
CV INCLUDES substitutionary atonement as its mechanism for victory. It is victory THROUGH bearing our sin and suffering.
Ummh. I like that but I still think you've work to do in showing why CV is necessarily substitionary.
Well CV is substitutionary because that is simply what CV says. But perhaps you are asking how Christ bears our sin and suffering if not in a punitive sense of appeasement? We have answered this question in fact several times now. Jesus becomes us so that he can overcome what is in us. Here are Martine Luther's words:
Luther begins by describing the problem of sin in Christus Victor terms:
"When the merciful Father saw that we were being oppressed through the Law, that we were being held under a curse, and that we could not be liberated from it by anything..."
then shifts into substitutionary atonement,
"...He sent His Son into the world, heaped all the sins of all men upon Him, and said to Him: “Be Peter the denier; Paul the persecutor, blasphemer, and assaulter; David the adulterer; the sinner who ate the apple in Paradise; the thief on the cross. In short, be the person of all men, the one who has committed the sins of all men. And see to it that You pay and make satisfaction for them."
and then explains this in the context of Christus Victor,
“Let us see how Christ was able to gain the victory over our enemies. The sins of the whole
world, past, present, and future, fastened themselves upon Christ and condemned Him. But because Christ is God He had an everlasting and unconquerable righteousness. These two, the sin of the world and the righteousness of God, met in a death struggle. Furiously the sin of the world assailed the righteousness of God. Righteousness is immortal and invincible. On the other hand, sin is a mighty tyrant who subdues all men. This tyrant pounces on Christ. But Christ’s righteousness is unconquerable. The result is inevitable. Sin is defeated and righteousness triumphs and reigns forever.”
(from Luther's commentary on Galatians 3:13)
quote:
You see it is that word 'tendency' that bothers me. It is no different from me saying that CV, without the proper biblical qualifications, has a tendency to minimise our responsibility.
And you would be right. It does.
--------------------
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:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Johnny, what is our responsibility in PSA? What must we do?
PSA has responsibility for sin at it's very core. As Jesus dies so sentence is pronounced on all our sin. Believing that must mean accepting responsibility for my attitudes and actions, I accept that this is what I deserve. The verdict is 'guilty' and I accept that verdict.
Consequently, there is also huge motivation to change my life in the future too
That's what you call responsibility?
I would call it "avoiding responsibility" because Christ is the one who takes the responsibility.
--------------------
"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
Thanks that's helpful.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
But perhaps you are asking how Christ bears our sin and suffering if not in a punitive sense of appeasement? We have answered this question in fact several times now.
Sorry about that, I must just be a bit dim because I still haven't got this bit yet.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
"...He sent His Son into the world, heaped all the sins of all men upon Him, and said to Him: “Be Peter the denier; Paul the persecutor, blasphemer, and assaulter; David the adulterer; the sinner who ate the apple in Paradise; the thief on the cross. In short, be the person of all men, the one who has committed the sins of all men. And see to it that You pay and make satisfaction for them."
How is that last clause not PSA?
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
“Let us see how Christ was able to gain the victory over our enemies. The sins of the whole
world, past, present, and future, fastened themselves upon Christ and condemned Him. But because Christ is God He had an everlasting and unconquerable righteousness. These two, the sin of the world and the righteousness of God, met in a death struggle. Furiously the sin of the world assailed the righteousness of God. Righteousness is immortal and invincible. On the other hand, sin is a mighty tyrant who subdues all men. This tyrant pounces on Christ. But Christ’s righteousness is unconquerable. The result is inevitable. Sin is defeated and righteousness triumphs and reigns forever.”
Likewise.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
How is that last clause not PSA?
Johnny, I agree. I think it is.
--------------------
"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
It is not PSA because in Luther's thinking the condemnation was unjust, not the fulfillment of justice. Luther describes it as being "against all law and custom" (Luther's commentary on Isa 53)
Also satisfaction is not the same as PSA. Satisfaction is a term that comes from Catholicism and means "to compensate" or "to make restitution" and NOT "to appease" or "to gratify". You can see with the adjacent term "pay" that it is in the terms of a debt owed (which indicates Anselm's satisfaction model) not of a penalty. In Anselmian satisfaction one pays the debt to avoid punishment, this is very different from PSA where one pays the debt through punishment. The language of Christ paying our debt is biblical. The idea of his being punished in our place in order to appease justice is no where in the Bible, nor is it in Luther.
You seem to see anything that remotely resembles PSA language and immediately assume that they are talking about PSA. You need to read people (like Luther or Paul or Anselm) in their own context and try to get behind their own framework of thinking.
Also note that I answered your question of how CV works through substitutionary atonement, and you changed the subject.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Thanks that's helpful.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
But perhaps you are asking how Christ bears our sin and suffering if not in a punitive sense of appeasement? We have answered this question in fact several times now.
Sorry about that, I must just be a bit dim because I still haven't got this bit yet.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
"...He sent His Son into the world, heaped all the sins of all men upon Him, and said to Him: “Be Peter the denier; Paul the persecutor, blasphemer, and assaulter; David the adulterer; the sinner who ate the apple in Paradise; the thief on the cross. In short, be the person of all men, the one who has committed the sins of all men. And see to it that You pay and make satisfaction for them."
How is that last clause not PSA?
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
“Let us see how Christ was able to gain the victory over our enemies. The sins of the whole
world, past, present, and future, fastened themselves upon Christ and condemned Him. But because Christ is God He had an everlasting and unconquerable righteousness. These two, the sin of the world and the righteousness of God, met in a death struggle. Furiously the sin of the world assailed the righteousness of God. Righteousness is immortal and invincible. On the other hand, sin is a mighty tyrant who subdues all men. This tyrant pounces on Christ. But Christ’s righteousness is unconquerable. The result is inevitable. Sin is defeated and righteousness triumphs and reigns forever.”
Likewise.
--------------------
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:
You can see with the adjacent term "pay" that it is in the terms of a debt owed (which indicates Anselm's satisfaction model) not of a penalty. In Anselmian satisfaction one pays the debt to avoid punishment, this is very different from PSA where one pays the debt through punishment. The language of Christ paying our debt is biblical. The idea of his being punished in our place in order to appease justice is no where in the Bible, nor is it in Luther.
What debt? My point is that I can't see what debt Jesus had to pay if it wasn't some sense of penalty for our sin.
Likewise Luther's comment about condemnation. How is condemnation not penal language?
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
You seem to see anything that remotely resembles PSA language and immediately assume that they are talking about PSA. You need to read people (like Luther or Paul or Anselm) in their own context and try to get behind their own framework of thinking.
I'm not asking you to agree with me on PSA, but I would ask you to concede that the above paragraph proves nothing. I could say exactly the same about you wanting to twist Luther's language into your framework. Stating it proves nothing, you have to demonstrate that you are the one who understands Luther properly.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Also note that I answered your question of how CV works through substitutionary atonement, and you changed the subject.
How did I change the subject? AFAIK your answer to how CV works is that, according to Luther, it works via PSA.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
My point is that I can't see what debt Jesus had to pay if it wasn't some sense of penalty for our sin.
Biblically, the debt is one of ransom from slavery. "You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men" (1 Co 7:23)
quote:
Likewise Luther's comment about condemnation. How is condemnation not penal language?
Because in Luther's paragraph it the devil who is condemning Christ, not God. It is unjust condemnation.
Again CV works by Christ becoming us so that he can overcome what has enslaved us. He does this because he is more concerned with us than he is with blame or getting paid, and is thus willing to bear our abuse, our hurt, our pain, our guilt, our victimhood, our evil, our hopelessness, our slavery, in order to see us set free. God does not bear these things in order to fulfill some requirement(PSA), but in order to set us free and bring us out of death and into life (CV).
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
I could say exactly the same about you wanting to twist Luther's language into your framework. Stating it proves nothing, you have to demonstrate that you are the one who understands Luther properly.
No, I don't think you can. I am basing my view on Luther on reading massive amounts of his writing, (as well as the works of major commentators on Luther), and looking at the entire context of Luther's thought. You are basing your view on finding isolated "vocabulary words" in a quote I gave and injecting a meaning into it that is out of context.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Interesting discussion. I can appreciate your pulling the rank of scholarship on Luther; Paul is another matter. You, Sharktacos, have no greater credential than anyone else to claim you know his context unless you are a first century Jew. Hence I'd rather accept my own reading of Ro 3:25 than yours.
Here's another text of interest
Heb 7:26,7 "High preist..(Christ) who does not need daily like those high priests to offer up sacrifices first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people, because this he did once for all when he offered up himself."
This suggests to me that Christ's priestly function meant that Calvary was a sacrifice in which Christ functioned as priest and victim and that the sacrifice element was for sins of others as well as himself though he was sinless of course.
My question is how is such a text not more reconcilable with PSA as a model than with CV.
--------------------
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
Jamat,
I agree that "priestly function meant that Calvary was a sacrifice in which Christ functioned as priest and victim and that the sacrifice element was for sins of others as well as himself though he was sinless of course."
It is not compatible with PSA because sacrifice in Hebrews is about purification not punishment.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Jamat,
I agree that "priestly function meant that Calvary was a sacrifice in which Christ functioned as priest and victim and that the sacrifice element was for sins of others as well as himself though he was sinless of course."
It is not compatible with PSA because sacrifice in Hebrews is about purification not punishment.
On what authority? Surely purification
was more about preparation for worship. Sacrifice was the act of worship one prepares for. On could also say we are purified by the act of appropriating calvary personall see 1Pet 2:9
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Johnny, it's not that we don't welcome critiques of CV. I have been more than happy to critique PSA. I don't think, though, that the crtiques of PSA have been restricted to straw men or caricatures of it, as sharktacos pointed out.
Opposition to PSA has been on the grounds of:
It suggests to some that God sanctions injustice:
Some object to the idea that Christ was punished:
Some say God gets angry in the PSA model:
Some say it minimises Jesus teaching and emphasises his death too much:
Some suggest the sacrifice concept is barbaric:
Some claim it is unscriptural:
You'd have to say that most of these ar quite pejorative and tending to reactiveness. The temptation in such cases is for some sort of caricature to denigrate the opposing 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
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
Nope, purification is the purpose of the sacrifice. It has nothing to do with punishment. That is what Hebrews says repeatedly.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Johnny, it's not that we don't welcome critiques of CV. I have been more than happy to critique PSA. I don't think, though, that the crtiques of PSA have been restricted to straw men or caricatures of it, as sharktacos pointed out.
Opposition to PSA has been on the grounds of:
It suggests to some that God sanctions injustice:
Some object to the idea that Christ was punished:
Some say God gets angry in the PSA model:
Some say it minimises Jesus teaching and emphasises his death too much:
Some suggest the sacrifice concept is barbaric:
Some claim it is unscriptural:
You'd have to say that most of these ar quite pejorative and tending to reactiveness. The temptation in such cases is for some sort of caricature to denigrate the opposing view.
You left out the two big ones:
PSA is unjust
PSA is unbiblical
--------------------
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:
Biblically, the debt is one of ransom from slavery. "You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men" (1 Co 7:23)
You still haven't said what the price was and who it was paid to.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Likewise Luther's comment about condemnation. How is condemnation not penal language?
Because in Luther's paragraph it the devil who is condemning Christ, not God. It is unjust condemnation.
Allied with your comment above I presume you think that the debt was paid to the devil. If so your model has massive problems. Namely:
1. It is dualistic.
2. There is no biblical reference to the debt being paid to the devil.
3. If the debt was paid to the devil in what sense can we say that Jesus 'defeated' the devil? When someone/thing is redeemed from slavery it makes no sense to describe the owner as 'defeated' - quite the opposite it means that you uphold their original rights of ownership.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
No, I don't think you can. I am basing my view on Luther on reading massive amounts of his writing, (as well as the works of major commentators on Luther), and looking at the entire context of Luther's thought. You are basing your view on finding isolated "vocabulary words" in a quote I gave and injecting a meaning into it that is out of context.
= "argument weak, so shout louder." If Luther really is that straight forward then you should have no problem demonstrating it to a simpleton like me. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
Please define what you think "dualism" is and why it is bad.
As to your other comments, you really need to read Gustaf Aulen's "Christus Victor". All of the things you mention are dealt with it in there. In short, your view of CV is way too legalistic/wooden and needs to be understood as a dramatic narrative not as a rigid formula equation.
Same goes for Luther. Luther is not "simple" he is extremely complex.
What you keep doing is presenting an extreme oversimplification of something and then complaining that it is too simple, but then when we present a complex view you complain that it is too complex. Sorry, real life is not simple.
You need to pick one tactic: either you can say you don't understand CV and then be open to learning about it OR you can claim that you do understand it and then critique it intelligently. From your posts I think it is pretty obvious that you have never read Aulen's book, which kind of disqualifies you from the later. So please, go pick up a copy. Until then you will be fighting windmills.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Nope, purification is the purpose of the sacrifice. It has nothing to do with punishment. That is what Hebrews says repeatedly.
OK I've just read Hebrews. The word purification isn't there. In the 2 Pet 2:9 scripture it is mentioned in a different context. I'm using NASB. Hebrews does make extensive mention of sanctification Heb 10:10 and 14. The word redemption is mentioned in connection with Christ's shed blood Heb 9:12 and 15. Given that this is a concept (purification) you are assuming Hebrews is all about I 'd suggest this is more 'assertion'.
To prove PSA is unscriptural you really have to show that Christ did not pay the price for our sins. In other words you would have to contradict Heb 9:28, 1Jn 2:2 and quite a few other important verses. Now you say you endorse the substitutionary death of Christ. As John has pointed out, quite a few of your posts on the nature of CV read suspiciously like endorsements of PSA. It is just that you struggle with the two ideas of justice and the punishment concept. I'd suggest that it is all a question of a 'rose by any other name'. All you are really doing is redefining key terms like ransom and propitiation to make them smell better to your sensibilities.
The justice idea also seems to me a misnomer. To me God is just even if Christ was unjustly punished which I believe. This is because it was not Christ his anger was directed at but sin itself. And it was the sin of man that Jesus voluntarily took on board at the cross and this was the reason for God's presence leaving him and that agonised cry, "My God My God why have you forsaken me."
What's the problem?
--------------------
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
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Biblically, the debt is one of ransom from slavery. "You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men" (1 Co 7:23)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You still haven't said what the price was and who it was paid to.
Clearly, the price was Jesus' death on the cross. I thought that was clearly established. Certainly no-one here is disputing it. It is the function of His death that is under discussion - is it penal in some sense, or is it sacrifice, in the broader sense of the word (as well as, of course, in the cultic sense, upon which I think most of us are agreed).
I'm not sure that the question "to whom is it paid", is a relevant one. Freddy ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) has gone to great lengths to demonstrate that the OT concept of "ransom" does not necessarily involve the payment to anyone, any more than the hero pushing the child out of the way of the oncoming train at the cost of his own life could be said to be making a payment to the railway company. It is simply the inherent cost of the salvific event. I suppose, if you really wanted to be picky, you could say it is a payment to the created reality (almost like the classical ransom theory, where payment is made to the devil), but it really is a bit more metaphysical than could be called truely biblical. I think the biblical evidence is pretty much against payment to anyone, but certainly there is no hint that it is payment to God.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
To prove PSA is unscriptural you really have to show that Christ did not pay the price for our sins. In other words you would have to contradict Heb 9:28, 1Jn 2:2 and quite a few other important verses.
No, you have to prove that Christ did not pay the price of our sins to God , and that God did not demand the death of Christ to appease His own wrath. You have to demonstrate that God's just character can only be vindicated by the punishment of offences, even if the person punished was in no way responsible for those offences.
quote:
Now you say you endorse the substitutionary death of Christ.
You say this as if we had not repeatedly expressed such endorsment.Properly understood, I think we all endorse the substitutionary death of Christ, though the Orthodox and some others would balk at the phrasing.
quote:
As John has pointed out, quite a few of your posts on the nature of CV read suspiciously like endorsements of PSA. It is just that you struggle with the two ideas of justice and the punishment concept. I'd suggest that it is all a question of a 'rose by any other name'. All you are really doing is redefining key terms like ransom and propitiation to make them smell better to your sensibilities.
I suggest that what you are doing is merely restating PSA to include in it elements of CV (which sometimes it contains, sometimes it doesn't) whilst maintaining its core distinctives. There seems little point in discussing where we agree. It is these core distinctives (off the top of my head: is God constrained to punish sin, is the cross a prerequisite for forgiveness, what happens when a holy God comes into contact with sin, is Jesus' death in some way to be seen as a penal act?)
quote:
The justice idea also seems to me a misnomer. To me God is just even if Christ was unjustly punished which I believe. This is because it was not Christ his anger was directed at but sin itself.
Of course you believe that Christ's death was unjust. Who does not? The issue is how such injustice can be made, with integrity, into a requirement of justice, which is fundamental to most expressions of PSA. This is what I mean by saying that PSA sounds awfully like a legal fiction, a casuistical attempt to dig oneself out of a hole created by antropomorphising the nature of God as akin to a fallen human judge.
quote:
And it was the sin of man that Jesus voluntarily took on board at the cross
Not only the sin of man , but with that caveat, agreed.
quote:
... and this was the reason for God's presence leaving him and that agonised cry, "My God My God why have you forsaken me."
I don't believe that the Father's presence ever left Jesus. What Jesus experienced was aliention from God, the human condition. But God was no more separated from Him than from any of His created beings. It's just that, for that momemt, Jesus, like us, could not "see" Him. His presence was there, it was just that He wasn't experiencing it. Now I hate the old "Footprints" thing with a passion, but, on this, I think it has something to say. "It was then I carried you".
quote:
What's the problem?
The problem is that PSA portrays a God who is not like Jesus Christ, which is pretty serious if we regard Jesus as the perfect embodiment of the Father.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
