Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Absolutely, you've got it. Because the problem that we have, that keeps us from experiencing God forever, is not our sin (dealt with by forgiveness, apart from the cross), but our ontological identity as bound to "sin and death".

---

I'm not clear if you are fundamentally disagreeing with sharktacos here or not?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
For example, in Romans 1 and 8 Paul seems to link our present state of 'decay' with the wrath of God. How do you read those passages?

---

quote:

---

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

---

quote:

---

Romans 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions.

---

Johnny, are you thinking that Paul means that God actually gave up on people and that this was a cause of sinful behavior?

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

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
ISTM CV explains well the victory but gives no explanation as to 'how'.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Johnny, are you thinking that Paul means that God actually gave up on people and that this was a cause of sinful behavior?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Perhaps it might focus my understanding of CV if anyone commented on how Paul saw specifically Christ's death as the victory?

---

quote:

---

Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

---

quote:

---

Luke 10:18 And He said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven."

Matthew 25:41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I suppose that phrase 'handing us over' is key. I can see how some baulk at the concept of 'punishment' but at the same time there is some sense of God actively letting it happen rather than passively.

What do you think?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
How do you "disarm" these characters, making a public spectacle of them? Doesn't Paul mean that they were exposed by their efforts to destroy God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
But since that is a sophisticated idea, requiring an ability to think seriously about causation, the Bible describes it as God's anger, which even children can understand.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Disarming someone by exposing their wrong actions only 'works' if there is a superior power who will 'enforce' justice. Otherwise what difference does it make?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Romans 1 (ISTM) says that God is actively involved in this process, more than just passively allowing it to happen.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
ISTM CV explains well the victory but gives no explanation as to 'how'.

---

ISTM that without a concept of the spiritual realm and how it affects humanity CV makes no sense.

---

• Who did Christ triumph over? The devil, satan, "the ruler of this world", hell.
• Where did the victory take place?In the spiritual realm.
• How does it affect us? Humanity is affected by the state of things in the spiritual world. When hell grows larger and stronger we suffer. When Chrsit restored order to the spiritual world we were freed from Satan's grasp.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
The biblical principle is that God is active, not passive. This is the truth.

But the active workings of God are beyond our powers to comprehend. So He is explained in human terms that we can comprehend. The statements about His anger and punishments fall into that category.

---

That's a cop out Freddy.

You are saying that the bible does use the language of anger and punishment in relation to God, but it isn't really like that, it is beyond comprehension... and so we should give PSA the boot!

If you agree that the language is there at least, and if you think that what really happens is beyond our understanding then your reasons for ditching PSA in favour of CV must be very flimsy.

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
You are saying that the bible does use the language of anger and punishment in relation to God, but it isn't really like that, it is beyond comprehension... and so we should give PSA the boot!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you agree that the language is there at least, and if you think that what really happens is beyond our understanding then your reasons for ditching PSA in favour of CV must be very flimsy.

---

I didn't say that there wasn't an explanation that we could comprehend, just that God as He is in Himself is beyond our understanding. So it's no wonder that people struggle to grasp how He works.

My understanding is that God is depicted as angry and punishing because these things are consistent with the human perspective of a God who controls everything. It is harder to understand that a God who loves humanity will not wish to control us but to make us free.

As I see it, a principle about the Bible is that the most important ideas are the ones that are emphasized, even if their implications are inconsistent with other biblical teachings. God's god-ness is a primary biblical concept, so this is emphasized even when it seems to conflict with His goodness. Goodness is a more subtle concept than power and right vs. wrong. Even intelligent theologians struggle to understand how permitting evil is consistent with a loving, omnipotent God.

So my "flimsy" reason for ditching PSA in favor of CV is that the biblical language that describes God as angry and punishing is actually inconsistent with the biblical language that describes Him as loving and omniscient.

One or the other must be true, and I choose God's love and wisdom over His anger and punishments.

References to God's wrath and punishments are therefore, in my opinion, accomodations to our anthropocentric understanding - which we can transcend.

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

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:


One or the other must be true, and I choose God's love and wisdom over His anger and punishments.

References to God's wrath and punishments are therefore, in my opinion, accomodations to our anthropocentric understanding - which we can transcend.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fauja:
God lets us make our own choices, 'giving us over' can be understood as 'giving us permission and freedom to...'. I don't see it as God giving up on anyone.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:


One or the other must be true, and I choose God's love and wisdom over His anger and punishments.

References to God's wrath and punishments are therefore, in my opinion, accomodations to our anthropocentric understanding - which we can transcend.

---

Okay, got you.

What criteria (other than wishful thinking) do you use to work out when the bible is describing God in ways we can transcend and ways we can't?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Comparison of passages.

The Bible is actually fairly long, and it repeats itself. If you compare what it says in one place with what it says in another place, it ends up explaining itself. It is especially helpful to compare what Jesus says with what is said elsewhere.

Do you use this method?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
But my problem is that Jesus said so much about hell, punishment and judgment. I find his teaching very disconcerting.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Do you prefer what Paul says?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
But I read Jesus and discover that, actually, he says as much about judgment as elsewhere.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
You wouldn't happen to be seeking a system in which sin has no consequences would you?

If so, then isn't PSA the right one for you?

---

I thought I was the one who was always bringing it back to PSA?

Actually, this is the one accusation that cannot be levelled at PSA. The whole point of PSA is that sin must always have consequences (punishment) but that Jesus takes those consequences for us.

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Actually, this is the one accusation that cannot be levelled at PSA. The whole point of PSA is that sin must always have consequences (punishment) but that Jesus takes those consequences for us.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
So we don't have to worry about them?

---

What do you mean worry?

Yes - any I sin (even those in the future) I commit causes / caused Christ suffering. I am deeply troubled that Christ had to suffer for me.

No - I will no longer receive the punishment I deserve.

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
No - I will no longer receive the punishment I deserve.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
But my problem is that Jesus said so much about hell, punishment and judgment. I find his teaching very disconcerting.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Isn't CV more consistent with what Jesus says? Doesn't He say that we need to abide with Him by keeping His commandments or else we will be cast out?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Both models see our efforts in keeping Christ's commandments as a response to Christ's victory on the cross.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think you are confusing PSA with the 'easy believism' of 'praying the prayer' as a ticket to heaven.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
No - I will no longer receive the punishment I deserve.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 25:45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

John 15:6 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...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.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.

Luke 12:47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

Luke 6:38 Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.

Revelation 2:23 And I will give to each one of you according to your works.

Revelation 22:12 And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
Freddy - in what sense are we forgiven if we are still punished?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
And what do you think is a fair punishment? The Bible seems to me to say that the punishment for sin is death, so if we do still receive the punishment we deserve, how can we be free from death? How can we have any hope of the resurrection life?

---

quote:

---

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.

Luke 12:47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

Luke 6:38 Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.

Revelation 2:23 And I will give to each one of you according to your works.

Revelation 22:12 And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, I am frankly baffled as to how anyone can seriously claim that Luther's thought rejects PSA altogether.

Nuanced, yes. Outright rejection, no.

---

quote:

---

Martin Luther elevated sola fide to the principal cause of the Protestant Reformation, the rallying cry of the Protestant cause, and the chief distinction between Protestant Christianity and Roman Catholicism.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
After sharktacos' comments about Martin Luther I have been reading his commentary on Galatians ...
Overall, I can see many of the elements of CV that are here and why others are rightly stressing them. However, I am frankly baffled as to how anyone can seriously claim that Luther's thought rejects PSA altogether.

Nuanced, yes. Outright rejection, no.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
Luther's view includes substitutionary atonement, but I do not think it is accurate to call it penal substitution. Notice in the passages you quote that Luther makes wrath one of the enemies of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
This is a much larger view of substitutionary atonement then PSA can contain. So while there may be PSA elements in Luther, ultimately one needs a larger understanding of substitutionary atonement couched in a larger understanding of Christus Victor to really enclose what Luther is saying.

---

What do you mean here?

We have already established (pages back) that this thread is looking at CV as a replacement for PSA. Right from the beginning all those who support PSA have argued that it is just one model that needs to be nuanced with other models (e.g. CV) but that we do not think the biblical data warrants getting rid of it altogether.

In the light of that your paragraph above doesn't make sense. If you are arguing that we should follow Luther then surely you must be arguing for a nuanced atonement model that includes elements of PSA?

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you are arguing that we should follow Luther then surely you must be arguing for a nuanced atonement model that includes elements of PSA?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

We have already established (pages back) that this thread is looking at CV as a replacement for PSA.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
[. [QUOTE] In II Corinthians 5:21 Paul writes: "For he (God) hath made him (Christ) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." Although this and similar passages may be properly explained by saying that Christ was made a sacrifice for the curse and for sin, yet in my judgment it is better to leave these passages stand as they read: Christ was made sin itself; Christ was made the curse itself.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
[. [QUOTE] In II Corinthians 5:21 Paul writes: "For he (God) hath made him (Christ) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." Although this and similar passages may be properly explained by saying that Christ was made a sacrifice for the curse and for sin, yet in my judgment it is better to leave these passages stand as they read: Christ was made sin itself; Christ was made the curse itself.

---

How on earth is this NOT saying Christ is a penal substitute?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:


It is Limited in that it is not only "penal" because it includes Christ bearing our unjust suffering which is certainly not penal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
It is Wrong in so far as PSA says the cross is about appeasing God through punishment, or bringing about justice through punishing.

So if one removes the wholly unbiblical "appeasing through violence" aspects, and incorporates PSA
1) into a larger understanding of substitution
2) then incorporates that into a nuanced version of CV... THEN I would agree with PSA.

But I would find it misleading to call it PSA at that point. It would be like calling Fillet Mignon "hamburger".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
Wrath is not satisfied or appeased, it is killed, conquered, overcome, by mercy. That ain't PSA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
The only way to see PSA in there is to read it out of context.

---

Nice one. The only way to see any atonement model in Luther's writing is to read it 'into' it! That is the whole point. Luther was not writing in the 21st century to settle an argument over contemporary models.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
This is a new idea. Who said that any suffering is unjust? It is often personally unjust but that is not quite the same thing.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
This is a new idea. Who said that any suffering is unjust? It is often personally unjust but that is not quite the same thing.

---

You need to think that through a lot more. Do you really want to say that when a person is raped, or a child is born with some crippling disease that this is a form of just punishment?

There is a great deal of emphasis in the Bible, in the psalms and Gospels for example on the idea of unjust suffering. In fact the Bible even says we will not only suffer unjustly, but that we will suffer for righteousness.

To limit our understanding suffering to punishment, has huge consequences for our understanding of the Gospel. If this is a new idea for you, then you need to spend some time working through this, reading the Gospels, and thinking about compassion for the "least". To frame all of our human problem in the context of just punishment is to miss 90% of the Gospel.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I never meant to say that suffering cannot be unjust. I was merely picking up your assertion earlier that unjust suffering cannot have a penal element to it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I never meant to say that suffering cannot be unjust. I was merely picking up your assertion earlier that unjust suffering cannot have a penal element to it.

---

That does not make sense. If suffering is unjust, then it makes no sense to speak of it as punishment.

---

We're obviously talking past each other here. I am talking about a simple fact of life - people are punished unjustly all the time. Jesus would fit into that category!

It is penal and it is unjust. The question is - how do we deal with this?

PSA says that this injustice is made right, it is cancelled out. CV says ... well, what does it say? I can see that it offers empathy in innocent suffering but what else? If all it does is 'unmake' the consequences then basically it is saying 'tough luck' to the person who suffered innocently to the person who didn't.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

PSA says that this injustice is made right, it is cancelled out.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
Um no, PSA does not say this. PSA says that Jesus bears our just punishment, period. It says nothing about unjust punishment.

---

Says who? Did you get that from the Official handbook on PSA ?

How do you think PSAers understand 1 Peter 2: 25 and Romans 12: 19?

What you mean is that your version of PSA that you want to ditch says nothing about unjust punishment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
CV is all about overcoming evil, which is a lot bigger than our individual guilt. You should read Moltmann.

---

I've read Moltmann and think his stuff on eschatology is great but he tends to universalism. That is my big beef with the debate over CV so far. I still think that the 'demise' of PSA is linked with an increasing latent universalism. (I know JJ disagrees with me on this one ). PSA makes 'sense' in a world where God does 'punish' sinners who refuse to repent by casting them over to the consequences of their actions ... what we call hell. If you accept that God does 'punish' (in some sense the final judgment has to fit into that category) then it is much easier to see how PSA 'fits' into things. I would argue for a much more nuanced view of PSA than the popular caricature but while there is 'hell' then there surely has to be some penal element to the atonement.

Therefore I think that you cannot hold onto a belief in the final judgment and let go of PSA altogether. I assume you will disagree with me here. However, you should read Moltmann on this one. That is exactly where he runs with it ... a CV understanding of the cross leads to Christ conquering all sin everywhere ... hence universalism.

Is that where you are headed?

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
Um no, PSA does not say this. PSA says that Jesus bears our just punishment, period. It says nothing about unjust punishment.

---

Says who? Did you get that from the Official handbook on PSA

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
By the definition on wikipedia, the definition on theopedia (a Reform wiki)...

---

Would those just happen to be the first two sites that come up if you google 'PSA'?

What you mean is that those articles don't mention it. And .... ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
PSA says nothing about Christ bearing our unjust suffering.

---

Just because some wikipedia article doesn't mention it means nothing. This is no different from me saying that the 'medical' aspect is not there in CV. "Yes, but it is an out working of Christ's victory." Exactly - give the same slack to PSA.

I notice that you managed to miss my (more substantial) question about Moltmann and Universalism though!

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
No dice Johnny. I listed them because they are readily accessible and included th definitions of Stott and Packer. Feel free to site any reputable definition you like of PSA, and you will see that I am right on this point. PSA deals with our avoiding just punishment, period.

---

Come on, this is getting embarrasing now - try reading chapter 13 of John Stott's The Cross of Christ ... it is called 'Suffering and glory'.

Funny that, the last chapter (before the conclusion) and he wants to finish by applying his view of the atonement to suffering, including the suffering of the innocent. At the very least Stott clearly sees all this as completely combatible with PSA, but if you read it you will see that some points arise directly from it.

One of his points is that living between the two 'poles' of the Cross and the last judgment enables those who have suffered unjustly to take comfort in a just God - his argument being that both are linked by a penal element (injustice will be punished).

... still no sign of any comments on Moltmann and Universalism.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
No dice Johnny. I listed them because they are readily accessible and included th definitions of Stott and Packer. Feel free to site any reputable definition you like of PSA, and you will see that I am right on this point. PSA deals with our avoiding just punishment, period.

---

Come on, this is getting embarrasing now - try reading chapter 13 of John Stott's The Cross of Christ ... it is called 'Suffering and glory'.

Funny that, the last chapter (before the conclusion) and he wants to finish by applying his view of the atonement to suffering, including the suffering of the innocent. At the very least Stott clearly sees all this as completely combatible with PSA, but if you read it you will see that some points arise directly from it.

One of his points is that living between the two 'poles' of the Cross and the last judgment enables those who have suffered unjustly to take comfort in a just God - his argument being that both are linked by a penal element (injustice will be punished).

... still no sign of any comments on Moltmann and Universalism.

---