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


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Christus Victor (Page 33)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  ...  67  68  69 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Christus Victor
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:


[Confused] So you are agreeing with me that the way Jesus reacted depended on the circumstances?

Having disagreed with me on the matter of chastisement you appear now to be agreeing with me - sometimes Jesus did chastise.

I don't understand you point. [Ultra confused]

I answered you about Jesus because you brought in the example, but the differences we were discussing was about God; here it is the Son of God reacting and teaching - 'you have made my father's house a den of thieves'.

Back to God: Orthodox teaching is that God is always merciful and forgiving, in principle. God cannot be other than that. When Christ teaches us to be perfect it is to reach that perfection, to love as God loves the good and bad equally, to bless and not curse and so on. Christ teaches that God is good, this is Christian principle. A good God cannot be the author of evil, as Christ teaches, it's a different father.

My point is that these two views of punishment don't relate to the principles of God as ever merciful, forgiving, etc., they can't be attributed to Him.

To do so creates an irrational God and a clear example is in the contiguous events of Exodus -to think the same God gave the commandment not to murder as gave the order to murder all the Canaanites. If the first God is true the other must be false. Either God is logical and reasonable or He's not, and Christ is logos, reason.

When Pelagius heard Augustine's OS doctrine, he told Augustine that he hadn't really given up his previously held Manichean view of God, that Augustine had created was a version of it.

The Manichean view was that the creator of this world, matter, was the evil God, and so matter was evil, while the good God was spirit and only spirit good. Augustine took elements of this to create his OS doctrine - that Adam and Eve "fell" into sinful nature, for example, which is at odds with God's creation of nature as good in Genesis I - and did so by calling good the God who punished them with death for disobedience having previously said they had been given free will by God.

Either they had free will or they didn't, if they did have it then God had no right to punish them for disobedience. Since Augustine believed they did have free will he ended up creating an evil, and irrational, God.

Myrrh



Myrrh

[ 23. September 2007, 05:47: Message edited by: Myrrh ]

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I answered you about Jesus because you brought in the example, but the differences we were discussing was about God; here it is the Son of God reacting and teaching - 'you have made my father's house a den of thieves'.

[Ultra confused] Doesn't Jesus show what God is like? Is he not God? If Jesus chastised (at the temple) then is it not legitimate to say that such behaviour must be compatible with the character of God? Or was this Jesus sinning?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066

 - Posted      Profile for Seeker963   Author's homepage   Email Seeker963   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:


However, even I can see that getting rescued from a burning building is pretty salvific.

So can I - the question is ... what are we being rescued from?
In my view of atonement, which is not strictly CV, we are being rescued from sin. Not insignificantly, we are being saved from the idea that victory and salvation are acheived by wielding power over other people and enslaving them for our own purposes.
I'm wondering why there is no response to this? Is it incomprehensible? A stupid remark?

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[Ultra confused] Doesn't Jesus show what God is like? Is he not God? If Jesus chastised (at the temple) then is it not legitimate to say that such behaviour must be compatible with the character of God? Or was this Jesus sinning?

Jesus never demonstrated any kind of quality that looked like: 'I will not forgive unless a legal penalty is paid.'

In the final analysis, Jesus was willing to forgive all who repented and even apparently a few who did not repent. Completely contradictory to PSA's claims of God's refusal or inability to forgive without tit-for-tat 'justice'.

--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)

Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333

 - Posted      Profile for infinite_monkey   Email infinite_monkey   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I answered you about Jesus because you brought in the example, but the differences we were discussing was about God; here it is the Son of God reacting and teaching - 'you have made my father's house a den of thieves'.

[Ultra confused] Doesn't Jesus show what God is like? Is he not God? If Jesus chastised (at the temple) then is it not legitimate to say that such behaviour must be compatible with the character of God? Or was this Jesus sinning?
My feeble stab at it is that there's some very distinct differences between what Jesus did at the temple and what people argue is the chastising of God. To me, what GrayFace said on the last page on the difference between vengeful and instructive punishment gets at the heart of it.

If we're talking about hell, as we have been a bit, I fail completely to see how hell can be an "instructive" punishment for the person chucked into it, since the fundamental concept of hell is that you don't get out, ever. If the debt isn't paid by Jesus, it's on your head for all eternity. It's vengeance, more or less.

What Jesus did at the temple was instructive punishment, as it were--giving them the chance to repent and move forward. If we are to see the acts of Jesus as the embodied acts of God, I can't find any of them in which the door wasn't left open.

[ 24. September 2007, 00:04: Message edited by: infinite_monkey ]

Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
In my view of atonement, which is not strictly CV, we are being rescued from sin. Not insignificantly, we are being saved from the idea that victory and salvation are acheived by wielding power over other people and enslaving them for our own purposes.

quote:
I'm wondering why there is no response to this? Is it incomprehensible? A stupid remark?
I think no one responded because it doesn't add anything. I'm not sure what difference what it makes to either CV or PSA?


quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Jesus never demonstrated any kind of quality that looked like: 'I will not forgive unless a legal penalty is paid.'

In the final analysis, Jesus was willing to forgive all who repented and even apparently a few who did not repent. Completely contradictory to PSA's claims of God's refusal or inability to forgive without tit-for-tat 'justice'.

This is just a rebuttal of PSA, we were discussing what it means for God to discipline us.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
My feeble stab at it is that there's some very distinct differences between what Jesus did at the temple and what people argue is the chastising of God. To me, what GreyFace said on the last page on the difference between vengeful and instructive punishment gets at the heart of it.

If we're talking about hell, as we have been a bit, I fail completely to see how hell can be an "instructive" punishment for the person chucked into it, since the fundamental concept of hell is that you don't get out, ever. If the debt isn't paid by Jesus, it's on your head for all eternity. It's vengeance, more or less.

What Jesus did at the temple was instructive punishment, as it were--giving them the chance to repent and move forward. If we are to see the acts of Jesus as the embodied acts of God, I can't find any of them in which the door wasn't left open.

Thanks. I do think this strikes to the heart of it.

To put my argument rather crudely, it has been something like this:

- If Hell does exist and is permanent separation from God then it cannot be entirely reformative, it must have a retributive element to it.
- Therefore if Hell does exist then then must be a penal element to the atonement.
- Hence if we believe that Jesus taught that hell exists then there must be some form of PSA (even if nuanced) in our atonement model.


Hence all my comments about universalism. I am increasingly convinced that a belief in hell is inextricably linked with PSA.

Of course universalism is another debate to be had in another thread, but my point is that if you believe in hell (in whatever sense) then I think you cannot let go of PSA.

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

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
However, even I can see that getting rescued from a burning building is pretty salvific.

So can I - the question is ... what are we being rescued from?
In my view of atonement, which is not strictly CV, we are being rescued from sin. Not insignificantly, we are being saved from the idea that victory and salvation are acheived by wielding power over other people and enslaving them for our own purposes.
I'm wondering why there is no response to this? Is it incomprehensible? A stupid remark?
I think because there is no answer. It is right on the mark.

This point of view paints sin as the only thing that causes harm, and makes God purely benificent. This is consistent with Jesus' statement that He does not judge:
quote:
John 8:15 You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one.
And yet He also says that He does judge. He clarifies what He means when He points out that the truth itself judges:
quote:
John 12:47 And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.
Jesus came purely to save. His words judge in the same sense that any warning of impending consequences judge people. An example would be the warning of scientists that human behavior could lead to disastrous climate changes. They are not calling down any kind of punishment for our behavior, but if they are correct then the truth of what they say will judge us.
quote:
Luke 17:21 nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”
If heaven is within us then hell must also be there. We are not cast into hell, we create it within ourselves.

So God is completely good and loving, with all His efforts being directed at preventing us from leading ourselves into trouble.

This is what CV is about. PSA, on the other hand, makes God the source of our future trouble if we don't do what He says. This is the way that children understand their parents' behavior towrds them, but it is not a mature perspective.

--------------------
"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      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Of course universalism is another debate to be had in another thread, but my point is that if you believe in hell (in whatever sense) then I think you cannot let go of PSA.

No.

PSA only makes sense if you believe that hell is inflicted on us by God.

--------------------
"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
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Perhaps, I'd have to check with Orthodox sources and re-read Aulen but I think you can very easily come up with a similar formulation that leaves the devil out of it, based on restoration of creation as righteous. Which almost, but not quite ties in with what I said at the end of page 31 about penal substitutionary language that isn't what most people understand PSA to be. I'll have a go at explaining that in more detail if you like.

Sorry for taking so long to get round to this, Johnny. This is the first chance I've had and I wanted to try to do it justice, if you'll excuse the pun...

The idea of the devil acquiring rights over us due to our rebellion against God can be restated in terms of something that's at the heart of all arguments in favour of PSA, namely that God's righteousness demands evil does not win. That is, saying the devil acquires a right to possess the souls of sinners is the same thing as saying sinners lose the right to the eternal life God intended for us. Even if you don't believe in the existence of the devil, it's a straightforward metaphor. By sinning, according to fairness and rightness you put yourself under the command and in the camp of the enemies of God.

Now, this then presents something of a problem. If God lets that stand, it means creation is evil and broken, his creatures in permanent rebellion and unable to reach the eternal life he wants for us. But if he simply pardons us unconditionally - which he has the perfect right to do being God after all - creation remains a story in which evil gets away with it and in that sense is a failure other than as a soul factory. If, however, God becomes human and identifies by union with either all those who follow him / are baptised into his death / everyone (see previous arguments about add-on selection criteria - hereafter known as Christ's people) then creation is restored in his unjust death and resurrection, sin fails to defeat God's purpose. In the one version of the story, the devil forfeits his right to Christ's people by killing Christ and thus overstepping his authority and it becomes good and right that even sinners may receive eternal life through Christ's victory. In the other version creation becomes good because evil has not won, the central story of creation is not that God had to pluck a few chosen rebels out of it or condemn everyone but rather that evil did not win, the justice and ultimate goodness of both creation and the rescue of sinners is affirmed by Christ's victory. But both versions really say the same thing.

Now, is the second version PSA? It's very close to what (with no offence intended to some quarters) the good PSA theologians say rather than the "Christ was punished to save me from Hell" tract version. But note the absence of any notion of retribution. At the heart of this there is unconditional forgiveness and the restoration of the righteousness of creation, not the need to punish sinners.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
No.

PSA only makes sense if you believe that hell is inflicted on us by God.

This is the bit I don't understand. If there is a hell then how it not be, at least in part, inflicted on us by God. I appreciate that those who end up there choose to go there themselves, but it is ultimately down to the world God created that their choices lead them there. I'm not talking about any sense of predestination here, just simple 'God created the world with these consequences built in'.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
In the other version creation becomes good because evil has not won, the central story of creation is not that God had to pluck a few chosen rebels out of it or condemn everyone but rather that evil did not win, the justice and ultimate goodness of both creation and the rescue of sinners is affirmed by Christ's victory.

Thanks Greyface, I like that and have probably used similar ways to explain the gospel before.

So, it's more a case of nuance than either / or. However, I'm convinced this version is fair to the sweep of the 'gospel' that we encounter in the four gospels. For example, in John's gospel Jesus does repeatedly describe God's plan as a rescue mission 'taking his followers out of an evil world'. John is full of darkness/light type of 'them and us' type imagery.

I'm not saying that I like it all, or that it is a case of one version over the other, just that the gospels insist that we include all of these pictures and versions.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
This is the bit I don't understand. If there is a hell then how it not be, at least in part, inflicted on us by God. I appreciate that those who end up there choose to go there themselves, but it is ultimately down to the world God created that their choices lead them there.

This isn't a knock-down answer but I don't think it's to do with the way God created the world, but instead the nature of reality given who God is.

If heaven is a place or a state or a metaphor for being in the blissful presence of God, and it's possible to be eternally not in heaven, then that's hell, isn't it? It may not, in fact I believe it is not because scripture as well as reason and tradition and experience tell us that God wants all to be saved, a question of God saying "You, off to hell, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred quid" but rather of someone choosing permanently and irrevocably and eternally that which is not God.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
So, it's more a case of nuance than either / or.

Yes, but I think there's a profound and critical difference between the penal substitutionary atonement I've tried to present as compatible with Christus Victor, and the simplified and frankly to my mind heretical form to which it easily collapses when dealt with carelessly - that God is about punishment of sin, we have sinned but luckily God is also merciful so God punished his Son instead of us so he could let us off.

quote:
However, I'm convinced this version is fair to the sweep of the 'gospel' that we encounter in the four gospels. For example, in John's gospel Jesus does repeatedly describe God's plan as a rescue mission 'taking his followers out of an evil world'.
I don't get that from St John, I get God so loved the world etc. The rescue mission is the rescue of creation as much as it is of a few proto- and actual Christians. I've tried to show how I believe Christ's actions bring this about, but the realisation of it in terms of justice at the local and political level are I think what we're called to do in working out our salvation and that's what the us and them is primarily about. It requires the Church to serve God and not the world (in the mammon sense) and in so doing serve the world (in the God's creation sense).

But that's a bit off-topic.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
No.

PSA only makes sense if you believe that hell is inflicted on us by God.

This is the bit I don't understand. If there is a hell then how it not be, at least in part, inflicted on us by God. I appreciate that those who end up there choose to go there themselves, but it is ultimately down to the world God created that their choices lead them there. I'm not talking about any sense of predestination here, just simple 'God created the world with these consequences built in'.
Yes, God created a world in which opposites exist, or "polarities" as A Feminine Force said
here:
quote:
It all makes perfect sense to me when I realize what experience in the material universe requires: polarity. Even the tiniest particles that comprise my corporeal self require polarity in order to be "in order". The positive/negative charge, the yin and yang of everything are utterly essential to my experience of the physical universe.
So if happiness and light are possible, then unhappiness and darkness must also be possible. God created the world this way, and it is a good way for the world to be.

This is not the same thing as saying that God created darkness. Genesis 1 explicitly avoids saying that He created it.

Similarly, God did not create hell. It exists purely as that which is not heaven. It is a place of darkness merely because of the relative absence of light there. It is not a place where God punishes, but rather a place where people shield themselves from the happiness that God would give them. They seek happiness in their own way, but what they find is not happiness but, relatively speaking, torment.

PSA, I think, demands that God do more than create a world that includes "polarities." Doesn't PSA demand that God actually punish?

--------------------
"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
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066

 - Posted      Profile for Seeker963   Author's homepage   Email Seeker963   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think no one responded because it doesn't add anything. I'm not sure what difference what it makes to either CV or PSA?

If your implication was that only PSA saves people 'from something', then it makes a difference. Why ask the question in the first place? And why ask the question and then ignore the answer?

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
This is just a rebuttal of PSA, we were discussing what it means for God to discipline us.

I don't see Jesus 'offering anyone discipline'. Where did he say 'If you do X, I will cause Y to happen to you'? He told a few people not to sin any more. He rebuked a few people. He may even have threatened people. I can't think of a place where he disciplined anyone. (I do not believe that threats and rebukes are 'discipline'.)

PSA threatens everyone with damnation. The key to PSA is this threat, as far as I can see. Furthermore, we are threatened with damnation not because of what we do but because of what we are. The way that we avoid damnation is by believing a set of doctrines.

So, PSA does not care what we do, whether our deeds are good or bad. How on earth do you call this discipline?

--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)

Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks Freddy and GreyFace. I'll chew over those depictions of Hell.

I struggle with them because it sounds as if you are making God contingent to our freewill but I'm not sure if you really are.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I don't see Jesus 'offering anyone discipline'. Where did he say 'If you do X, I will cause Y to happen to you'? He told a few people not to sin any more. He rebuked a few people. He may even have threatened people. I can't think of a place where he disciplined anyone. (I do not believe that threats and rebukes are 'discipline'.)


So what was Jesus doing as he cleansed the temple?

Also, how do you interpret language like this from Jesus?

"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgement than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies?
No, you will go down to the depths."

(Luke 10: 13-15)

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066

 - Posted      Profile for Seeker963   Author's homepage   Email Seeker963   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I don't see Jesus 'offering anyone discipline'. Where did he say 'If you do X, I will cause Y to happen to you'? He told a few people not to sin any more. He rebuked a few people. He may even have threatened people. I can't think of a place where he disciplined anyone. (I do not believe that threats and rebukes are 'discipline'.)


So what was Jesus doing as he cleansed the temple?

Also, how do you interpret language like this from Jesus?

"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgement than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies?
No, you will go down to the depths."

(Luke 10: 13-15)

So when you say that PSA provides 'discipline', you think that 'Don't do this / don't believe that or you'll go to hell' is discipline? Knocking over a table in an expression of anger is discipline? I don't think either of those things are discipline.

Unlike some of the respondents here, I'm floating the idea that no theory of atonement actually provides divine discipline. I observe that God does not act in time in that way.

Threatening me in this life with hell in the next life is a threat. It's not discipline. It's not oriented toward my reform (and is more likely to result in my non-reform), it may not be proportional to my sin of telling a white lie, and there is no observable consequence for me in this life.

--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)

Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Unlike some of the respondents here, I'm floating the idea that no theory of atonement actually provides divine discipline. I observe that God does not act in time in that way.

... so presumably you think that parents would be more loving (more like God) if they never disciplined their children? (NB the question has nothing to do with punishment.)

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Threatening me in this life with hell in the next life is a threat. It's not discipline. It's not oriented toward my reform (and is more likely to result in my non-reform), it may not be proportional to my sin of telling a white lie, and there is no observable consequence for me in this life.

[Ultra confused] That simply makes me repeat my question - what was Jesus doing in Luke 10 then?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Thanks Freddy and GreyFace. I'll chew over those depictions of Hell.

I struggle with them because it sounds as if you are making God contingent to our freewill but I'm not sure if you really are.

I agree with you that God is not contingent on our free will. I think that it is possible both that we have genuine free will and that His will be done.

--------------------
"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      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
So what was Jesus doing as he cleansed the temple?

He was strongly asserting how things should be, and zealously criticizing those who opposed Him. He was driving them out of the temple, not killing, maiming or torturing them.

His warnings about eternal damnation may be compared to the warnings that anyone who understands the consequences of some action gives to those who don't know. This is warning, not the threat of retribution. Warnings to children about the dangers of playing with fire, drugs and alcohol, firearms, playing with knives, and similar things are often delivered in emotional and even frightening language. But these are expressions of love, not threats.

--------------------
"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
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066

 - Posted      Profile for Seeker963   Author's homepage   Email Seeker963   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Unlike some of the respondents here, I'm floating the idea that no theory of atonement actually provides divine discipline. I observe that God does not act in time in that way.

... so presumably you think that parents would be more loving (more like God) if they never disciplined their children? (NB the question has nothing to do with punishment.)
Sorry, where did I say that parents would be better parents if they didn't discipline their children? And what's that got to do with what I'm saying?

I'm saying I see sinners getting away with their sins in a lot of instances. Where do you see God clearly disciplining sinners in this life?

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[Ultra confused] That simply makes me repeat my question - what was Jesus doing in Luke 10 then?

Issuing threats. Where is anyone actually disciplined? Serious question. Please answer how they are disciplined rather than threatened? You can continue to refuse to answer my question, but it's not convincing me of your argument.

--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)

Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:

I'm saying I see sinners getting away with their sins in a lot of instances. Where do you see God clearly disciplining sinners in this life?

Er... that was the question I asked a few pages back that started this all off.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Where is anyone actually disciplined? Serious question. Please answer how they are disciplined rather than threatened? You can continue to refuse to answer my question, but it's not convincing me of your argument.

Read back over the past few pages and you'll see that you are just asking my questions. (I put that one specifically to GreyFace.)

That is my point. Jesus is talking about judgment here (Luke 10) ... he is not even threatening it, he is saying that it is going to happen.

Stop arguing with me and take it out with GreyFace and Freddy who think that a threat is a form of discipline (if it prevents bad behaviour).

My point is that (so it seems) we are saying that God neither disciplines (in the present) nor punishes (in the future). I don't think that is loving behaviour when compared to loved modelled in positive parenting.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
David Castor
Apprentice
# 11357

 - Posted      Profile for David Castor   Author's homepage   Email David Castor   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hope that this post doesn't hijack the ongoing discussion on this thread (if so, perhaps it be split into a new thread), but last night the Sydney Anglican Synod voted to endorse Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Interestingly enough, the amendment to endorse two books on the subject, "The Cross of Christ" by John Stott and "Pierced For Our Transgressions" by some random theological students was surprisingly defeated.
Posts: 42 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:


That is my point. Jesus is talking about judgment here (Luke 10) ... he is not even threatening it, he is saying that it is going to happen.

Stop arguing with me and take it out with GreyFace and Freddy who think that a threat is a form of discipline (if it prevents bad behaviour).

My point is that (so it seems) we are saying that God neither disciplines (in the present) nor punishes (in the future). I don't think that is loving behaviour when compared to loved modelled in positive parenting.

There's a difference between punishment and consequences, Christ is talking consequence in Luke 10.

Christ sent out his disciples in PEACE, how can one possibly think it peaceful for God to coerce others to come to him by threatening them with punishment if they don't..

That's back to the irrational God of OS - 'yes, I created you with free will, but if you disobey me I'll kill you'. Consequences. Christ was likening the situation to Sodom and for the same reasons, inhospitality towards the stranger, which in Sodom was exercised to the nth degree, if we're inhospitable to others we put ourselves out of God's hospitality. Christ's teaching is all about our decisions creating circumstances - so we pray that our sins are forgiven as we forgive others (that doesn't automatically exclude being in situations from the actions of others against us and so on, it's what we need to do to play our part in changing circumstances for everyone).

The law in England finally got around to stopping corporal punishment of children at schools if that's what you mean by parental discipline.

Myrrh

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

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

His warnings about eternal damnation may be compared to the warnings that anyone who understands the consequences of some action gives to those who don't know. This is warning, not the threat of retribution. Warnings to children about the dangers of playing with fire, drugs and alcohol, firearms, playing with knives, and similar things are often delivered in emotional and even frightening language. But these are expressions of love, not threats.

I've been thinking about the description that both you and GreyFace gave of hell. You basically use language that I would sometimes use when explaining it to a non-Christian - but
when I do so I always feel rather disingenuos, for the following two reasons:

1. I don't think it is as simple as hell being people choosing to reject God. Paul defines idolatry as wanting to love and worship created things rather than our creator (in Romans 1). If all good things come from God then some will want to carry on enjoying all of God's creation while rejecting God as God.

2. I have a problem with impersonal descriptions of God (e.g. polarities etc.) since it makes God to be impersonal. As CS Lewis once commented on this issue - an impersonal force has no mercy. I thought the whole point of the gospel was that God does not give to us what we deserve - hence he does not allow 'cause and effect' to happen.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by David Castor:
Hope that this post doesn't hijack the ongoing discussion on this thread (if so, perhaps it be split into a new thread), but last night the Sydney Anglican Synod voted to endorse Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Interestingly enough, the amendment to endorse two books on the subject, "The Cross of Christ" by John Stott and "Pierced For Our Transgressions" by some random theological students was surprisingly defeated.

Interesting.

If, as I assume they argue, PSA is what the Protestant church has always believed then why the need to endorse it?

Any indication as to why the book endorsement was defeated?

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by David Castor:
Hope that this post doesn't hijack the ongoing discussion on this thread (if so, perhaps it be split into a new thread), but last night the Sydney Anglican Synod voted to endorse Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Interestingly enough, the amendment to endorse two books on the subject, "The Cross of Christ" by John Stott and "Pierced For Our Transgressions" by some random theological students was surprisingly defeated.

Interesting.

If, as I assume they argue, PSA is what the Protestant church has always believed then why the need to endorse it?

Any indication as to why the book endorsement was defeated?

Back from hols [Frown]

That, of course, is a very good question. I think the answer is that the particular strand of "gathered church" theology in the ascendancy in Sydney Diocese tends partly to define itself, in the literal Protestant sense, against other expressions of Christianity that it sees as somehow flawed. Thus, it tends to be reactive. Some guys are questioning what they see as being the biblical interpretation of the Atonement. Then we'd better weigh in on the side of Scriptural Truth ™

The refusal to endorse "The cross of Christ" is possibly understandable in that many of the right consider Stott too nuanced for their tastes, but in that case it's difficult to see what argument thay would have had with PFOT. I can only assume that there are other dynamics at work here, unknown to us Sydney outsiders.

--------------------
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
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
1. I don't think it is as simple as hell being people choosing to reject God. Paul defines idolatry as wanting to love and worship created things rather than our creator (in Romans 1). If all good things come from God then some will want to carry on enjoying all of God's creation while rejecting God as God.

I don't understand what your problem is there. Can you explain?

quote:
2. I have a problem with impersonal descriptions of God (e.g. polarities etc.) since it makes God to be impersonal.
Who described God that way?

quote:
I thought the whole point of the gospel was that God does not give to us what we deserve - hence he does not allow 'cause and effect' to happen.
Cause and effect isn't anything to do with what we deserve. It's to do with what happens. I don't know where you've got that idea from at all but I could refute it with any number of examples from daily life.

Anyway, God being the cause of the effect we call our salvation sounds like the gospel to me.

[ 25. September 2007, 09:36: Message edited by: GreyFace ]

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
1. I don't think it is as simple as hell being people choosing to reject God. Paul defines idolatry as wanting to love and worship created things rather than our creator (in Romans 1). If all good things come from God then some will want to carry on enjoying all of God's creation while rejecting God as God.

That's right. Evil is a matter of misplaced priorities. Created things are intended to be good and beneficial. They become problematic when they are desired in favor of God and what God prioritizes, namely justice, mercy and faith.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
2. I have a problem with impersonal descriptions of God (e.g. polarities etc.) since it makes God to be impersonal. As CS Lewis once commented on this issue - an impersonal force has no mercy. I thought the whole point of the gospel was that God does not give to us what we deserve - hence he does not allow 'cause and effect' to happen.

I agree. God is not polarities, nor is He impersonal. He is a person.

It is true that God does not give us what we deserve. His love shields us from the consequences of what we are and what we desire. He rigorously preserves our freedom so that we can choose what to love and how to be.

This is not the same thing as not allowing cause and effect to happen. He merely modifies it in order to promote our salvation.

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

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I don't understand what your problem is there. Can you explain?

Not only is God great but, as a consequence, his place is out of this world too! (Apologies for the pun.) It may make sense to describe hell as people hating God but not wanting to be near him. However, life on earth demonstrates that many people who don't like God still like his 'stuff'. It is not a case of not wanting to be near the one they hate, more a case of wanting to stay in his place but not wanting to have anything to do with him. What does God do with that? Surely he will, however relunctantly, have to ask them to leave? (And then it is more than cause and effect but an active decision of God.)

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
2. I have a problem with impersonal descriptions of God (e.g. polarities etc.) since it makes God to be impersonal.
Who described God that way?
Freddy did, by quoting AFF.

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Cause and effect isn't anything to do with what we deserve. It's to do with what happens. I don't know where you've got that idea from at all but I could refute it with any number of examples from daily life.

Okay, call it what happens then, we still get to the same end point. If you describe death as 'what happens' rather than God's punishment on sin, then the gospel is still God reversing cause and effect so that we don't die but have eternal life.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I agree. God is not polarities, nor is He impersonal. He is a person.

It is true that God does not give us what we deserve. His love shields us from the consequences of what we are and what we desire. He rigorously preserves our freedom so that we can choose what to love and how to be.

This is not the same thing as not allowing cause and effect to happen. He merely modifies it in order to promote our salvation.

That seems very unfair - why doesn't he 'modify' it for everybody?

With PSA everyone is treated equally - we all deserve punishment but that punishment either falls on us or on Christ. Cause and effect, the same for all.

However, you seem to be saying that cause and effect is modified for some but not for all.

[ 25. September 2007, 15:50: Message edited by: Johnny S ]

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

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I have a problem with impersonal descriptions of God (e.g. polarities etc.) since it makes God to be impersonal.
quote:
Who described God that way?
Freddy did, by quoting AFF.
That's not what AFF said. Her quote was:
quote:
It all makes perfect sense to me when I realize what experience in the material universe requires: polarity. Even the tiniest particles that comprise my corporeal self require polarity in order to be "in order". The positive/negative charge, the yin and yang of everything are utterly essential to my experience of the physical universe.
Meaning that polarities, or opposites, are an inherent part of creation, not that God is impersonal.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It is true that God does not give us what we deserve. His love shields us from the consequences of what we are and what we desire. He rigorously preserves our freedom so that we can choose what to love and how to be.

This is not the same thing as not allowing cause and effect to happen. He merely modifies it in order to promote our salvation.

That seems very unfair - why doesn't he 'modify' it for everybody?
He does modify it for everyone. Everyone is treated exactly the same. True cause and effect would mean that wicked thoughts and actions would draw evil things to you like a magnet, quickly destroying your world.

This kind of cause and effect are modelled in the immediate punishments and benefits that happened to Old Testament Israel in response to their fidelity or lack thereof.

In real life those consequences are so muted and disguised in the physical world that they are imperceptible. Sin does not make you sick, weak or poor in any demonstrable way except those dictated by physical or civil laws.

But in the long run everyone's well-being is directly and precisely related to the quality of the love and faith that they are willing to receive from God.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
With PSA everyone is treated equally - we all deserve punishment but that punishment either falls on us or on Christ. Cause and effect, the same for all.

That doesn't sound equal to me. Are you saying that two equally loving and moral people might not be treated equally? [Confused]

And you really believe that God punishes? [Confused]

[ 25. September 2007, 16:55: 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      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:


And you really believe that God punishes? [Confused]

I find the arguments that you and GreyFace are using philosophically very compelling. My problem is that I can't find these ideas in the teaching of Jesus.

For example I have just come back from a meeting at church where we were discussing Graham Dow's rather silly comments about the recent flooding in Britain.

Part of the discussion focussed on the tower of Siloam in Luke 13. (I also mention that passage since Jeffrey John famously tried to use it at Easter to bash PSA.)

Now, in Luke 13 verses 1-5 I think it is possible to interpret Jesus along your lines of warning about cause and effect. However, it is as if Luke edits his gospel to prevent us from leaving it there. The parable that follows immediately in verses 6-9 wants to take us further. This is not cause and effect, this is the deliberate action of the gardener. There is great patience, but eventually (if the tree bears no fruit) it will be cut down.

I find your arguments compelling, I just can't square them with the teaching of Jesus.

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

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I find your arguments compelling, I just can't square them with the teaching of Jesus.

I understand, Johnny. It is interesting that whereas Jesus never advocates either revenge or punishment, His parables do contain acts of violent retribution.

As you note, the gardener will cut down the unfruitful fig tree. The owner of the vineyard will "destroy" the wicked vinedressers. The master of the feast casts the one not wearing a wedding garment into "outer darkness." The man inviting people to a wedding feast destroys whole cities of people who refuse to come to the feast. In fact, most of Jesus' stories include some kind of violence of this type.

How is this consistent with the Jesus who made the following statements?
quote:
Matthew 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,

Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil.

Luke 9:53 But they did not receive Him, because His face was set for the journey to Jerusalem. 54 And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?”
55 But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. 56 For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.”

There is a clear difference between these statements, where Jesus is advocating literal actions, and the parables. The parables are typically full of hyperbole for the purpose of making their point. In parables people aren't simply rebuffed, they are killed. They do not merely succeed, they become fabulously wealthy.

So the consequences in parables are typically severe and absolute. The consequences also originate in some sort of master, who is clearly meant to represent God.

This does make it easy to believe that God is the source of all consequences, and that they are likely to be severe and absolute.

And this is in the New Testament stories that Jesus tells! The God depicted in these stories is hardly different than the Old Testament God, who both threatens and carries out massive and severe retaliation against those who oppose Him.

The solution to this puzzle seems very clear to me, so I'm wondering why it is not clear to you and others. Is this really a puzzle for you?

Isn't the answer that simplistic minds need simplistic answers? Children believe that punishments originate with whoever is handing them out. It is hard for them to see them as the direct consequences of their own actions. Since all things come from God, it is easiest for a simple person to see all consequences as coming from God as well. To achieve this, God needs to be viewed as capable of anger and violent action.

Jesus' stories, just like the Old Testament histories, run with this premise. They make memorable stories for people of any age, with a clear and useful message. They are explicit warnings.

I believe that the truth that is consistent with Jesus' other sayings, quoted above and in other passages, is that the consequences alluded to as hyperbole in Jesus' parables actually do happen, but that God is not actually their source. Rather, punishment is inherent in evil itself - not because God wills it, but because freedom demands that there be a possible alternative to happiness. So just as God does not angrily slam people to the ground who fall from high places, neither does He punish people who are addicted to drugs, or who are self-centered bastards. The punishment is inherent in the thing itself.

This seems to me to be completely consistent with Jesus' statements. He is about love and mercy. He loves every person. His forgiveness is universal. But people nevertheless face consequences for what they do, and those consequences can be severe. He came into the world to warn people away from them, and to enable people to avert them.

If you cannot square these things with the teachings of Jesus, however, then I would advocate sticking with Jesus' teachings as you understand them. He is the source and the authority. I tend to believe that epistemology is more crucial in the long run than exegesis.

It is also crucial, I believe, to make all biblical statements consistent with each other. If Jesus' statements seem to conflict with each other, then reinterpretation is in order. Do you agree?

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

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Freddy, thanks a lot for taking the time to give such a thought out explanation of your position.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:


So the consequences in parables are typically severe and absolute. The consequences also originate in some sort of master, who is clearly meant to represent God.

This does make it easy to believe that God is the source of all consequences, and that they are likely to be severe and absolute.

There is another difference between the statements you compare. The ethical commands to non-retaliation are to his disciples in the present, however the 'punishment' in the parables refers to a future judgment by God.

Therefore we have two alternatives:

1. The parables are ... well, parabolic, and Jesus is just 'exagerating'.

2. Jesus expects his followers to 'turn the other cheek' because they leave ultimate justice up to God (a la Romans 12).

Of course the question is - how can we be sure of option 1 or 2?


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The solution to this puzzle seems very clear to me, so I'm wondering why it is not clear to you and others. Is this really a puzzle for you?

Isn't the answer that simplistic minds need simplistic answers? Children believe that punishments originate with whoever is handing them out. It is hard for them to see them as the direct consequences of their own actions. Since all things come from God, it is easiest for a simple person to see all consequences as coming from God as well. To achieve this, God needs to be viewed as capable of anger and violent action.

Jesus' stories, just like the Old Testament histories, run with this premise. They make memorable stories for people of any age, with a clear and useful message. They are explicit warnings.

I think you are are dangerous ground here, for several reasons but this is the main one:

- If your premise is correct then you seem to have two options open to you:

1. Keep a penal element in your atonement model since Jesus did when he was explaining it to 'all' people. (i.e. keep PSA)

or

2. Claim that actually you are better at communicating the gospel then Jesus was. If this was the way he did it to explain it simply to all people then who are we to change the metaphors entirely? Even if you are right, we have absolutely no evidence that Jesus deviated from this 'childish' explanation so what gives us the right to deviate ourselves?

Remember Jesus was not talking to children then, he was talking mostly to adults. Either you are going to have to be incredibly patronising and claim that they were all uneducated, illiterate peasants then and Jesus had to pat them on the head, or that Jesus would use similar metaphors today.

I can't help feeling that you are saying that you can improve on the gospel Jesus preached. While I concede that Jesus would not communicate to people in the 21st century in the same way he did in the 1st, this is not about communication, this is about changing the message.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:


It is also crucial, I believe, to make all biblical statements consistent with each other. If Jesus' statements seem to conflict with each other, then reinterpretation is in order. Do you agree?

I totally agree. That is what I give my whole life to and I respect you in that you are trying to do the same. I find that it is an iterative process and am fully aware that I won't even get close in this life!
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The ethical commands to non-retaliation are to his disciples in the present, however the 'punishment' in the parables refers to a future judgment by God.

Therefore we have two alternatives:

1. The parables are ... well, parabolic, and Jesus is just 'exagerating'.

2. Jesus expects his followers to 'turn the other cheek' because they leave ultimate justice up to God (a la Romans 12).

I don't think that those are the alternatives.

For example, I think that option 1 is mis-stated because Jesus does not exaggerate in the parables. Metaphors work on a different principle. Parables don't literally describe what happens but rather convey symbolically core truths about how things work. The core truth, I believe, in the parables mentioned above is that we reap the consequences of our actions and even of our thoughts and desires. The metaphoric aspect is that the agent of our punishment is not God. The future judgment of God is really just the consequences of our own actions.

Option 2 is a little different. One aspect of turning the other cheek is trusting in God and in some sense trusting the order that God has created to enforce justice. But I don't think that this is what is really going on here. We are told to turn the other cheek because we are to love even our enemies, and desire peace rather than war. There is no implication that this is because God will do the punishing. Exactly the opposite. We are to be this way because this is how God is:
quote:
Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil.

Matthew 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

So God is kind to the evil. Their misery is self-inflicted.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Of course the question is - how can we be sure of option 1 or 2?

Only if this is what we believe the Bible actually says.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Isn't the answer that simplistic minds need simplistic answers?

I think you are are dangerous ground here, for several reasons but this is the main one:

- If your premise is correct then you seem to have two options open to you:

1. Keep a penal element in your atonement model since Jesus did when he was explaining it to 'all' people. (i.e. keep PSA)

Yes, that's right. I do often keep a penal element when explaining things because this is often easier for people to hold in their minds than the complex idea that we are the cause of our own suffering. This is especially true when talking to children. The idea that God punishes the evil is easy for them to grasp.

But this isn't PSA. It's never about people taking punishments for other people.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
or

2. Claim that actually you are better at communicating the gospel then Jesus was. If this was the way he did it to explain it simply to all people then who are we to change the metaphors entirely? Even if you are right, we have absolutely no evidence that Jesus deviated from this 'childish' explanation so what gives us the right to deviate ourselves?

Jesus plainly said that He spoke in parables:
quote:
Matthew 13:34 All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them,

John 16:25 “These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but I will tell you plainly about the Father."

It's not about changing the metaphors, but acknowledging and explaining them.

And there is certainly evidence that Jesus deviated from these childish explanations. That's what the quotes above are about. That's why He can tell a parable about the king destroying whole cities, and then turn around and rebuke the disciples for even thinking about calling down fire from heaven on people.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It is also crucial, I believe, to make all biblical statements consistent with each other. If Jesus' statements seem to conflict with each other, then reinterpretation is in order. Do you agree?

I totally agree. That is what I give my whole life to and I respect you in that you are trying to do the same.
I appreciate that you are doing this too. Unfortunately, it is not easy to do. So it's good to have these discussions. [Angel]

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

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Wow, you were up late - or were you up early?

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The idea that God punishes the evil is easy for them to grasp.

But this isn't PSA. It's never about people taking punishments for other people.

So how can you have a penal aspect without PSA? Is God punishing people better than Jesus accepting our punishment for us?


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
And there is certainly evidence that Jesus deviated from these childish explanations. That's what the quotes above are about. That's why He can tell a parable about the king destroying whole cities, and then turn around and rebuke the disciples for even thinking about calling down fire from heaven on people.

Interestingly that is precisely why I referred to Jesus' warning of judgment on Korazin and Bethsaida in Luke 10, a while back. In Luke 9 he rebukes his disciples for wanting to call down fire as an act of 'revenge' on a village and yet in the very next chapter Luke records Jesus (in plain speech, not parable) speaking of a future judgment on these towns. Again, the difference here is not between parable and plain speech but between immediate revenge and delayed judgment.

I take your point about parabolic language but I don't think it holds across Christ's teaching.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Unfortunately, it is not easy to do. So it's good to have these discussions. [Angel]

It sure is hard - it does my melon in!
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
In Luke 9 he rebukes his disciples for wanting to call down fire as an act of 'revenge' on a village and yet in the very next chapter Luke records Jesus (in plain speech, not parable) speaking of a future judgment on these towns. Again, the difference here is not between parable and plain speech but between immediate revenge and delayed judgment.

Johnny, I think what we have here is two (at least) pre-existing conceptions of God being read into Scripture, rather than Scripture being used to form out neutral conceptions of God. Perhaps this is inevitable.

When I read that bit of Luke 9, I don't get Jesus rebuking them on the grounds that it's a bit too early, fire will be sent to destroy the Samaritan villagers later on - that wouldn't be much of a rebuke to me, saying "hang on, you're jumping the gun." Rather I get Jesus telling them they have failed to grasp what God is like. God isn't the kind of God who rains down fire on sinners in vengeful anger. But perhaps that's just me coming from a previous position.

Sometimes certain Orthodox Shipmates say on threads like this that PSA-followers believe in a different God and a different gospel to the rest of Christianity. I'm starting to wonder if they may be right.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Wow, you were up late - or were you up early?

Ah, the miracle of time zones. [Biased]
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The idea that God punishes the evil is easy for them to grasp.

But this isn't PSA. It's never about people taking punishments for other people.

So how can you have a penal aspect without PSA? Is God punishing people better than Jesus accepting our punishment for us?
As far as children are concerned, yes. Children tend to always believe that punishments originate in the one in charge. Adults understand that this is not true. The same should be the case with our understanding of God.

So there is no penal aspect, other than that punishment is inherent in evil itself. There is no PSA.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
And there is certainly evidence that Jesus deviated from these childish explanations. That's what the quotes above are about. That's why He can tell a parable about the king destroying whole cities, and then turn around and rebuke the disciples for even thinking about calling down fire from heaven on people.

Interestingly that is precisely why I referred to Jesus' warning of judgment on Korazin and Bethsaida in Luke 10, a while back. In Luke 9 he rebukes his disciples for wanting to call down fire as an act of 'revenge' on a village and yet in the very next chapter Luke records Jesus (in plain speech, not parable) speaking of a future judgment on these towns. Again, the difference here is not between parable and plain speech but between immediate revenge and delayed judgment.
In agreement with Greyface, there is a difference between a doctor predicting dire consequences if a patient does not lose weight and stop smoking, and a doctor calling down punishments on fat smokers. The first doctor is trying to help, the second doctor is mean.

As a patient, of course, it's hard to tell the difference. [Biased]

It's no wonder that there is similar confusion about God. [Roll Eyes]

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

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
As far as children are concerned, yes. Children tend to always believe that punishments originate in the one in charge. Adults understand that this is not true. The same should be the case with our understanding of God.

I thought we had just covered this. Jesus was talking to adults, not children.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
In agreement with Greyface, there is a difference between a doctor predicting dire consequences if a patient does not lose weight and stop smoking, and a doctor calling down punishments on fat smokers. The first doctor is trying to help, the second doctor is mean.

As a patient, of course, it's hard to tell the difference. [Biased]

It's no wonder that there is similar confusion about God. [Roll Eyes]

I understand the difference, but it seems very odd that Jesus, who came to reveal God to us, should add to that confusion rather than clarifying it.

If it is as you say, then it would have been incredibly easy for Jesus to point all this out. It seems very strange that he refused to do so.

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

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
As far as children are concerned, yes. Children tend to always believe that punishments originate in the one in charge. Adults understand that this is not true. The same should be the case with our understanding of God.

I thought we had just covered this. Jesus was talking to adults, not children.
I know you don't agree with this, but I think that the same applies to simple adults, and this is who Jesus was addressing. I realize that many people He was addressing were quite well educated, but most of the people, and certainly the disciples, were unsophisticated.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It's no wonder that there is similar confusion about God. [Roll Eyes]

I understand the difference, but it seems very odd that Jesus, who came to reveal God to us, should add to that confusion rather than clarifying it.

If it is as you say, then it would have been incredibly easy for Jesus to point all this out. It seems very strange that he refused to do so.

I think that He did point this out in the quotes that I have listed above, and others. I wonder how it is that this isn't clear to you.

Are you denying that Jesus said that God is good to everyone and that He does not seek retribution? Or are you just confused by the apparent contradictions in Jesus' sayings?

--------------------
"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
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
In my view of atonement, which is not strictly CV, we are being rescued from sin. Not insignificantly, we are being saved from the idea that victory and salvation are acheived by wielding power over other people and enslaving them for our own purposes.

I'm wondering why there is no response to this? Is it incomprehensible? A stupid remark?
Well, I've been busy. [Biased] I thought it was brilliant. <fluffs pom-poms> Cheers, OliviaG

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I realize that many people He was addressing were quite well educated, but most of the people, and certainly the disciples, were unsophisticated.

Unsophisticated, by what criteria? Because they put a high value on the family and community responsibility? I always get very nervous when liberal westerners turn their noses up at periods of history. Who's to say that they weren't more sophisticated than us?

Your argument seems to rest on the premise that modern liberal values are the objective yard stick by which we measure everything else.

I'm not a huge fan of POMO but I think it has taught us that there is no objective human stand point from which to view history.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Or are you just confused by the apparent contradictions in Jesus' sayings?

Yep, that's me.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Unsophisticated, by what criteria?

For one thing, this is how the gospels portray them.

For example:
quote:
Mark 8:14 Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, and they did not have more than one loaf with them in the boat. 15 Then He charged them, saying, “Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.”
16 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “ It is because we have no bread.”
17 But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, “Why do you reason because you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive nor understand?"

Jesus is vexed by their ignorance. They should have easily understood that Jesus was criticizing the Pharisees.

They are portrayed as slow to catch on to many things Jesus said:
quote:
Mark 9:31 For He taught His disciples and said to them, “The Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of men, and they will kill Him. And after He is killed, He will rise the third day.” 32 But they did not understand this saying, and were afraid to ask Him.
This is one of numerous incidents where Jesus predicted His death - but they go right over the disciples' heads.
quote:
Mark 9:33 Then He came to Capernaum. And when He was in the house He asked them, “What was it you disputed among yourselves on the road?” 34 But they kept silent, for on the road they had disputed among themselves who would be the greatest.
Here they are arguing about their own greatness like children. And despite Jesus' rebuke, two of them approach Him not long after - clearly having missed His message:
quote:
Mark 10:35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to Him, saying, “Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask.”
36 And He said to them, “What do you want Me to do for you?”
37 They said to Him, “Grant us that we may sit, one on Your right hand and the other on Your left, in Your glory.”
38 But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you ask.

They were too simple to even understand what they were asking.

We have talked about the following already. Is this a sophisticated response to a cold reception?
quote:
Luke 9:54 And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?”
Jesus, of course, rebukes them.

After the crucifixion the disciples showed how badly they misunderstood Jesus' mission when they said:
quote:
Luke 24:21 But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel.
They thought that He would lead them in rebellion against Rome - despite all that He said.

Of course He DID redeem them, but not in the way that they understood the concept.

As for those who were better educated and more sophisticated, Jesus made it clear that they understood even less:
quote:
John 9:39 And Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind.”
Then some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these words, and said to Him, “Are we blind also?”
Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains.

Similarly:
quote:
Matthew 16:3 and in the morning, ‘It will be foul weather today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ Hypocrites! You know how to discern the face of the sky, but you cannot discern the signs of the times.
The Pharisees knew the Law, but they were simple and literal minded when it came to understanding Jesus' message.

It is easy to say that Jesus might have been more clear about His statements. He did often speak enigmatically. But I think that it is evident that He was often addressing His teaching to people who were unsophisticated and even simple-minded. And those who were educated appeared to understand even less.

--------------------
"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      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Your argument seems to rest on the premise that modern liberal values are the objective yard stick by which we measure everything else.

I agree with your feeling here, but I don't think that this is what I am doing. I don't hold with modern liberal values.

The point I am making is that Jesus is addressing His remarks to people who do not understand, who are simple and unsophisticated, and this is why the parables use the imagery that they do.

Children and simple people need images that they can relate to and hang on to, and it is easier for them to grasp a God who is in charge and punishes than one who never punishes and yet is still God. He said as much when He explained the reason for His parables:
quote:
Matthew 13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

Of course, He then praises the disciples because of their open understanding. So maybe they weren't so simple after all. [Biased]

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

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It is easy to say that Jesus might have been more clear about His statements. He did often speak enigmatically. But I think that it is evident that He was often addressing His teaching to people who were unsophisticated and even simple-minded. And those who were educated appeared to understand even less.

Sorry, I thought you were making a generalisation about people then as opposed to now.

If you mean it in that sense then I would argue that people are (generally) exactly the same now and so surely we should communicate in a similar way to how Jesus did then.

[ 26. September 2007, 21:21: Message edited by: Johnny S ]

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I guess that many will be relieved that I am going to have to shut up for days on end ...

... I'm moving about a lot over the next couple of months (from next week) and so I'll only be able to check the ship occasionally. [Disappointed]

Eventually we arrive at our new home in December but there is a fair bit of travelling in between.

Anyway, thanks for all your comments everyone. Even if it doesn't always show, I really appreciate listening to your POV. [Overused]

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

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you mean it in that sense then I would argue that people are (generally) exactly the same now and so surely we should communicate in a similar way to how Jesus did then.

Good. So the Bible remains relevant. [Biased]

I agree that people in general aren't that much different. So I think that it is appropriate, generally speaking, to describe God in the anthropomorphic way that the Bible does - that He gets angry, that He punishes and judges. I say these kinds of things in church and in teaching children.

But when it comes to real explanations of what it's all about, this just doesn't add up. So in adult classes and other more academic communications, the more complicated biblical implications win out.

They do, in my opinion, rule out PSA, since PSA only works in a system where God Himself actively punishes. PSA rules out a purely benificent God.

Christus Victor, on the other hand, features a God who is purely interested in saving humanity from its sins. Forgiveness is therefore not the issue. The issue is the repentance that changes the behavior, which in turn removes the consequences of the behavior as a matter of course. If people can be persuaded to sin less, then the consequences of sin will also be reduced. This is what the victory is about.

--------------------
"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      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Eventually we arrive at our new home in December but there is a fair bit of travelling in between.

Enjoy the trip. Leaving Cheltenham? Sounds like you're moving far away. Luckily this is a world-wide Ship! We'll miss you. [Angel]

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

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

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I know I keep banging on about it but I think it all comes back to universalism. I still haven't had a clear answer as to why CV does not eventually collapse into universalism. (I think that is what happens if you remove PSA from the model.)

It took me a while but, as promised, I asked a friend about Moltmann. She is doing a PhD on him and her comments were very interesting:

quote:

"The key things about Moltmann are that 1) the Father creates by withdrawing into himself and making a space (zimzum), which is essentially 'hell' as it is a place where God is not. 2) Into that space he creates the world. Into that space he sends Christ to be the true man, the exempler of humanity and by his Spirit he will ultimately indwell that space so that all that God has created will be taken up into the very life of God. 3) In a nutshell, it is panentheism, and it is unmistakably universalism as God cannot forsake anything that he has created."

Not only did she confirm my theory about Moltmann ending up in universalist territory but she also put me onto the link with panentheism. This makes sense to me since it also explains the CV connection with Eastern Orthodox thought. (She says that his best work is The Trinity and the Kingdom of God)

Now this thread is about CV and not about universalism, so...

I just think that some want to have their cake and eat it. They want to reject a penal understanding of God but hold onto some sense of divine judgment.

I want to make it clear, again, that this is not out of some sadistic enjoyment of punishment. I long for hell to be empty too.

My logic is as follows:

- Jesus himself describes hell as being populated
- Therefore I can't go for universalism
- Therefore I can't accept any atonement model that collapses into universalism.


... so, if any of you can convince me that CV need not be universalistic then I'd be much obliged. [Smile]

They cant...because it is!

--------------------
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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  ...  67  68  69 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

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