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 38)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  ...  67  68  69 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Christus Victor
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Now, Johnny, the funny thing is I see the Con Evo way "accept God on His own terms" as the easy way, submission, and insisting that one cannot simply re-write "love"...

But that's just it - all of us 're-write' love. You make it sound as if there is some 'English dictionary' [not the OED [Big Grin] ] that objectively defines 'love' for all of humanity. I asked you earlier how you get your definition of love ... you stilled haven't answered.

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I was only thinking this on the way home here; if I may be so bold, the Con Evo way looks like Islam - submission, whereas what I'm trying to do is Israel - wrestling with God. If Abraham could tell God what a good and just God can and can't do, so can I.

[Confused] I like the analogy Karl but am puzzled by it. Both the biblical occasions you allude to (Genesis 18/19 & 32) refer to the Patriarchs wrestling with God and 'prevailing' ... only the 'prevailing' ends up being God getting them to see it his way.

In fact it is rather bizarre that you should quote Abraham in Genesis 18 - the chapter ends with Abraham telling God that a good God can't destroy Sodom (for the sake of of ten) - and then what happens in chapter 19?

If you are going to uphold Abraham as an example then surely the conclusion is that it is legitimate to question God (in the manner that you do) but he wants to (through this process) to bring us to a position where we see that all deserve his judgment ... hence his forgiveness is all the more wonderful?

I'm trying not to be obtuse. You were the one who picked the example of Abraham!

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:
[QB]The reference he makes to the rebuke over the disciples wanting to rebuke a Samaritan village comes in Luke 9. In the very next chapter, just a few verses later, Jesus sends out the 72. There he speaks a lot about the terrible judgment to come (on Korazin and Bethsaida for example).

How do we reconcile these passages? After all they are both the words of Jesus.

IMHO it makes much more sense of the text if the issue is delayed judgement. In Luke 9 the disciples were wanting present personal revenge. Jesus wants us to love our enemies so he rebukes them for that. Luke 10, OTOH, is about God's future judgment. Let's not conflate the two issues.{?QB]

Just dipping back in, John.

Of course, the alternative way of reconciling these passages is that, in the first, Jesus is rebuking the disciples because they are cursing the Samaritan village. In the second, Jesus is prophesying the fate of K & B, if they continue to reject Jesus' message. The question that remains is, was Jesus talking about the last judgement or the events of AD 70.

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

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Of course, the alternative way of reconciling these passages is that, in the first, Jesus is rebuking the disciples because they are cursing the Samaritan village. In the second, Jesus is prophesying the fate of K & B, if they continue to reject Jesus' message. The question that remains is, was Jesus talking about the last judgement or the events of AD 70.

I don't really see that so much as an alternative reading but more of a complementary one.

I'd be happy with that reading.

However:

1. Jesus is still prophesying judgment. I know that you would see the promised destruction as simple 'cause and effect' but if God created the world in the first place we can't entirely 'let him off the hook' for building this 'cause and effect' into the world.

2. Whether or not he is talking about the fall of Jerusalem he is still talking about judgment ... see point 1 [Biased]

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

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
1. Jesus is still prophesying judgment. I know that you would see the promised destruction as simple 'cause and effect' but if God created the world in the first place we can't entirely 'let him off the hook' for building this 'cause and effect' into the world.

Setting up the situation in such a way that people are free to rebel and bring unhappiness on themselves is not the same as punishing them.

He built "cause and effect" into the world as an inevitable aspect of our "independent" existence. When we jump off high buildings God isn't punishing us by slamming us onto the ground.

All God's "punishments" are like this. He doesn't punish, we punish ourselves, or are punished by "cause and effect."

I would completely let God off the hook.

--------------------
"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:
Setting up the situation in such a way that people are free to rebel and bring unhappiness on themselves is not the same as punishing them.

He built "cause and effect" into the world as an inevitable aspect of our "independent" existence. When we jump off high buildings God isn't punishing us by slamming us onto the ground.

All God's "punishments" are like this. He doesn't punish, we punish ourselves, or are punished by "cause and effect."

I would completely let God off the hook.

Your argument only works because it is an analogy. However, if we look closely at the points of similarity with those of contrast it soon falls down.

- this is not like gravity. According to your interpretation of Luke 10 you are saying that if you jump from a high building you get splatted, unless you repent (after having jumped off the building) 'cos then God suspends the laws of 'cause and effect'. So God suspends the laws for some, but not for all. Doesn't sound very fair to me, and it certainly breaks down the analogy.

- We are not talking about impersonal physical forces. We are talking about personal relationships. I frequently use this language with my daughters - I tell them that if they do X then Y will happen to them, not because I ant to do Y but because Y is the inevitable consequence of action X. I tell them that but already they know that Y is not inevitable in that sense, Y happens because I will it to. That is a much fairer analogy because it is a personal one.

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:
- this is not like gravity. According to your interpretation of Luke 10 you are saying that if you jump from a high building you get splatted, unless you repent (after having jumped off the building) 'cos then God suspends the laws of 'cause and effect'. So God suspends the laws for some, but not for all. Doesn't sound very fair to me, and it certainly breaks down the analogy.

The analogy doesn't break down if you have a different understanding of what repentance is.

Repentance, as I understand it, isn't simply asking God's forgiveness and getting Him to suspend the law for you. Repentance is changing your ways, with God's help, so that you can do His will, living within the law. This is the normal meaning of repentance. The gravitational equivalent would not be the suspension of the laws of gravity but a means of dealing with gravity - like wings, a parachute, or landing on a cushion. You can't sprout these in mid-jump, but you can survive the jump and do better next time, or be warned about gravity ahead of time and take a parachute along.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
- - We are not talking about impersonal physical forces. We are talking about personal relationships. I frequently use this language with my daughters - I tell them that if they do X then Y will happen to them, not because I ant to do Y but because Y is the inevitable consequence of action X. I tell them that but already they know that Y is not inevitable in that sense, Y happens because I will it to. That is a much fairer analogy because it is a personal one.

It's true that we're not talking about impersonal physical forces but personal relationships. And the more consistently and perfectly loving a person is, the more predictable and reliable our interactions are with them. If Y happens because you will it to, and if you are perfectly loving, there must be a loving reason for it that is a loving reason.

God allows consequences to happen because He is perfectly loving and He knows that in the long run it is best for the human race to learn from the consequences of their actions. There is a good reason for His allowing these things, however terrible they might be, to happen - and this reason is consistent with the normal definition of "loving."

--------------------
"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
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 Freddy:
Setting up the situation in such a way that people are free to rebel and bring unhappiness on themselves is not the same as punishing them.

He built "cause and effect" into the world as an inevitable aspect of our "independent" existence. When we jump off high buildings God isn't punishing us by slamming us onto the ground.

All God's "punishments" are like this. He doesn't punish, we punish ourselves, or are punished by "cause and effect."

I would completely let God off the hook.

Your argument only works because it is an analogy. However, if we look closely at the points of similarity with those of contrast it soon falls down.

- this is not like gravity. According to your interpretation of Luke 10 you are saying that if you jump from a high building you get splatted, unless you repent (after having jumped off the building) 'cos then God suspends the laws of 'cause and effect'. So God suspends the laws for some, but not for all. Doesn't sound very fair to me, and it certainly breaks down the analogy.

Actually, I don't know that it is that poor an analogy. The people of K & B were facing judgement because of a very specific sin - that of rejecting the peaceful way of Jesus in favour of the political message of rebellion against Rome. Jesus didn't will the Romans to destroy the Jewish state, he just foresaw it as an inevitable consequence of their actions. The repentance would have been to renounce an earthly kingdom for the Kingdom of God. By analogy, that would be not jumping off the building, rather than changing their mind in mid air. When we are talking about our position vis-a-vis God, it is never too late to repent. When we are talking about relationship with a totalitarian state or a law of nature, this, sadly, is not the case.

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

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
When we are talking about our position vis-a-vis God, it is never too late to repent. When we are talking about relationship with a totalitarian state or a law of nature, this, sadly, is not the case.

I think the point is that the predictable long term consequence of sin is sorrow, not because God punishes, but because sin is inherently sorrowful in the long run.

If a person repents of sin, however, they avoid this consequence - not because God mercifully witholds the consequence but because He mercifully set it up so that less sin means, in the long run, less sorrow.

The relevance here to Christus Victor is that Jesus came to make it possible for people to sin less, and so to avoid sorrow. He did this by overcoming the power of hell, thus loosening its grip on human hearts and minds, and simultaneously (really part of the same process) teaching the truths that help people turn away from sin and turn towards 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
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Freddy & JJ,

You seem to be forgetting past sin that needs to be forgiven. As Freddy seems to be aware the analogy needs to 'sprout' wings mid-jump.

I think I now see why you guys have to distinguish so clearly between forgiveness and repentance. The model collpases unless they are totally separate issues with God in a constant state of forgiveness.

And what you have to demonstrate is that such a distinction is warranted by the NT. It think you are struggling here. Below are just a few verses I came up in a 30s search - which all describe forgiveness as conditional. And as I say, if forgiveness is conditional then your model collapses.... IMHO [Big Grin] .

"But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."


"And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."

"And so John came, baptising in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins."

"I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'"

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."

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:
You seem to be forgetting past sin that needs to be forgiven. As Freddy seems to be aware the analogy needs to 'sprout' wings mid-jump.

Yes, past sins need to be forgiven. But the comparison with the need to sprout wings mid-jump only holds if we assume that we die as soon as we have completed our first sin. The more usual pattern is that we live to jump again, and can do it better next time. We sin repeatedly in life, and we have numerous opportunities to either change or confirm our ways and habits.

But sin is not a list of offenses that accumulate and need to be individually reconciled. Sin is a state of being that grows worse or gets better over time. If a person has an incompetent employee, he or she may keep a list of the things the employee has done or has failed to do. But the issue is not the specific acts but the overall incompetence. If the employee changes his or her ways and becomes a competent employee, the past incompetence is no longer an issue, unless there is money owed or some other kind of reconciling that needs to happen.

My point is that past sins are forgiven when a person repents and changes their ways.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think I now see why you guys have to distinguish so clearly between forgiveness and repentance. The model collpases unless they are totally separate issues with God in a constant state of forgiveness.

I think it's just the other way around. Forgiveness and repentance are inextricably linked, opposite sides of the same coin. God is, it is true, in a constant state of forgiveness, but the forgiveness is not received unless there is repentance.

To return to the gravity model, gravity is in a constant state of forgiveness. It will instantly cease from smashing you to the ground the moment you have wings, parachute, cushion, or whatever. It is unchanging in its response to you. You are the one that changes.

God's love towards every person is unchanging. God doesn't change. He is consistently forgiving. Still, if we jump from high buildings without wings or a parachute, we fall.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
And what you have to demonstrate is that such a distinction is warranted by the NT. It think you are struggling here. Below are just a few verses I came up in a 30s search - which all describe forgiveness as conditional. And as I say, if forgiveness is conditional then your model collapses.... IMHO [Big Grin] .

I agree with all of those verses. There is no forgiveness without repentance. Forgiveness is conditional for every person. However, as it originates in God it is unconditional. He loves everyone, sinner or saint. The model holds.

--------------------
"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:
There is no forgiveness without repentance. Forgiveness is conditional for every person. However, as it originates in God it is unconditional. He loves everyone, sinner or saint. The model holds.

Simple question Freddy - God's forgiveness, is it conditional or not?

When you've made your mind up which it is then we can carry on this discussion.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
(Enters fray, I think for the first time, on p38).

Isn't this a well known "hard" question, Johnny S. What Jesus says does not seem to be the same as what Paul says. And the conditional "if" in the first letter of John is different again.

My own belief goes something like this. The offer of God's forgiveness is indeed unconditional. It is in His nature to always have mercy. So, like the father of the Prodigal, he looks for a sign that the offer is becoming "operational" - there is a sign of change. And "afar off" he sees the Prodigal trudging back, with all sorts of fears, conditionalities in his own heart. And he rushes towards the Prodigal and embraces him, as one back from the dead.

"Can a mother's tender care cease towards the child she bear?

Yes, she may forgetful be.

Yet will I remember thee"

Is that a clear enough answer?

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 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 Barnabas62:
The offer of God's forgiveness is indeed unconditional.

You'd make a great politican B62. [Biased]

ISTM therefore that the forgiveness itself must be conditional then. And if conditional then God does not / cannot forgive those who do not repent.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

You'd make a great politican B62. [Biased]

Oh God, I hope not!

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

ISTM therefore that the forgiveness itself must be conditional then. And if conditional then God does not / cannot forgive those who do not repent.

I don't know. I wonder about this. Some days I fervently hope that Hell will, ultimately, be empty. But some days, when I am made aware once again of the extreme cruelty and indifference of human beings towards one another, the "blood of Abel cries out from the ground". I tend to resort to a good truth in these moments.

"On Christ the solid Rock I stand
All other ground is sinking sand".

It does seem possible to me to hold in one's head a view of a generous and good God, and an understanding of the badness of people, and then say, "well maybe Hell will be necessary after all". But I'm glad the judgment of these things is not in my hands.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 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 Barnabas62:
But I'm glad the judgment of these things is not in my hands.

That makes two of us. [Big Grin]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The offer of God's forgiveness is indeed unconditional.

You'd make a great politican B62. [Biased]

ISTM therefore that the forgiveness itself must be conditional then. And if conditional then God does not / cannot forgive those who do not repent.

I agree with Barnabas that God's forgiveness is unconditional. I also agree that we don't receive that forgiveness, or that the forgiveness doesn't do us any good, unless we repent.

It's just like gravity. It always forgives us, but we don't benefit from its forgiving features unless we have the means to make use of them and employ those means - such as wings, a parachute, etc.

So Jesus says:
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, 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. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.
It seems to me that this is saying that being perfect involves loving those who do not love you, and that this is what God does. While it does not explicitly say that He loves everyone equally, this is implied in His "sending rain on the evil and the good." Similarly in Luke:
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. 36 Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.
He is kind to the unthankful and evil. This implies to me an absence of retribution.

I think that the confusion comes only if you see God as the source of both punishments and blessings. As I have said, I see God only as the source of blessings. All punishments are our own doing, or the work of the hells. It is, as I said, just like gravity. God is not the source of the "punishment" of being thrown to the ground when we fall. Falling, and the resulting impact, is simply what happens when we are unsupported. Hell works continuously to make us fall, but the Lord is continuously working to keep us from falling, or giving us wings, or helping us to land on a cushion. These means are called "forgiveness."

Every form of punishment works on this same principle. The sources of punishment are constant, as are the means of being delivered from punishment. God's love is constant and unconditional. The spiritual laws that govern these things are absolute, universal, and continual. The system is perfectly and precisely fair.

So it's not that God does not/cannot forgive those who do not repent. He forgives everyone. But the forgiveness does not help those who do not repent - because He is not the source of their punishment in the first place.

His forgiveness is the means to avoid the punishment of evil, if we make use of those means.

But if we fail to repent, we fail to make use of His forgiveness, and we suffer because of it.

The principle is simple. Virtually all consequences, both natural and spiritual, work on this same principle. Theological terminology only confuses the issue here, leading us to overthink something that is as straightforward as gravity.

--------------------
"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
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just seen the significance of the [Big Grin]

I'm glad you're not in the judgment seat either. But I want to get back to Freddy's quote here.

quote:
There is no forgiveness without repentance. Forgiveness is conditional for every person. However, as it originates in God it is unconditional. He loves everyone, sinner or saint. The model holds.
Given that scripture is not univocal on the conditionality of God's forgiveness (a given I assert but you might not concede) then the whole PSA thing (and the whole CV thing) seem to be resolved in the end by the interpretation we choose to believe is more balanced, more truthful, more in keeping with Tradition, or Scripture? I think there is choice there, mixed up no doubt with loyalties and obediences.

Why would you not want Freddy's model to hold, given that there is a reasonable choice to be made?

I argued on another thread that it is the P in PSA which causes the controversy. Substitutionary atonement is to be found in all mainstream traditions right from the start. Jesus died for me. While one can see the bases and arguments of advocates, just how essential is that P, given as I say the lack of one voice in scripture? Is it really necessary? Luke records the risen Jesus saying (Luke 24) "It was necessary for Christ to suffer" and I believe that.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271

 - Posted      Profile for Sean D   Author's homepage   Email Sean D   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I argued on another thread that it is the P in PSA which causes the controversy. Substitutionary atonement is to be found in all mainstream traditions right from the start. Jesus died for me. While one can see the bases and arguments of advocates, just how essential is that P, given as I say the lack of one voice in scripture?

I think there is cause to be wary of overstating the multivocity of Scripture, and its supposed implications. There are, of course, several ideas relating to the Atonement in Scripture. But that doesn't mean that these ideas are mutually contradictory, still less that we can privilege one over others if they are indeed found in Scripture. More likely is that these ideas are alltrue, or aspects of the truth, at the same time - a bit like God being three and one at the same time. He is three in one sense, and one in another. The Atonement is penal in one sense, and victorious over sin in another, an expression of unconditional love in a third sense, etc. These senses are related to one another and not to be taken to exclude one another any more than God's trinity excludes his unity.

So the P is as essential as you think it is in Scripture. One reason I think it is essential in Scripture is that I am still persuaded that in Romans 3 (to take the most important example) hilasterion carries a connotation of propitiation, and that the key problems the Atonement resolves are a) the wrath of God, set up as the Big Problem in the opening chapters, and b) the justice of God in 'passing over sins committed beforehand'. But I appreciate that this is a minority interpretation at present.

--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/

Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I argued on another thread that it is the P in PSA which causes the controversy. Substitutionary atonement is to be found in all mainstream traditions right from the start. Jesus died for me. While one can see the bases and arguments of advocates, just how essential is that P, given as I say the lack of one voice in scripture? Is it really necessary? Luke records the risen Jesus saying (Luke 24) "It was necessary for Christ to suffer" and I believe that.

It's the P and the S that are problematic to me. I just don't see either penalties or substitutions to have anything to do with the Christian message. And this is why I am not willing to accept those views as part of the gospel.

[ 16. February 2008, 15:03: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Here's the link I used earlier.

andreas, I appreciate this is a Wikipedia link, but it raised no criticisms when I quoted it before. Please look particularly at this excerpt

quote:
All branches of the Christian faith embrace substitutionary atonement as the central meaning of Jesus' death on the cross, while some differ in their larger atonement theories. The Eastern Orthodox Church incorporates substitutionary atonement as one (relatively minor) element of a single doctrine of the Cross and Resurrection, the Catholic church incorporates it into Aquinas' Satisfaction doctrine rooted in the idea of penance, and Evangelical Protestants interpret it largely in terms of penal substitution
Is that a misreprentation of the Eastern Orthodox position, as you understand it? If so, how? It is certainly a fair representation of the Catholic and the majority evangelical protestant understanding.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If you look at it theologically, then yes, we do not have a substitutionary view of atonement. In fact, our view of atonement has such a specific meaning that it cannot, by its very meaning, be substitutionary.

If you look at the rhetorics we have used, however, you might find verses that in isolation could be used to "prove" some sort of substitution taking place, without of course that being proof, because the spirit of the text those references belong to and of the writer that wrote this or that verse would be different.

You see, the Atonement starts with God the Son's assuming human flesh for himself and becoming human. The Incarnation is the beginning of atonement, and not the Cross. The Cross is another manifestation of the same Love that was manifested in the Incarnation. And it is the transforming power of that Love, which is the same in the Incarnation, in the Baptism, in the Crucifixion, in the Resurrection, in the Pentecost, that is our atonement. It's a unified experience that has to do with Who Jesus Christ is. His Presence is our Salvation, and not something he said or something he did.

Because, our ultimate goal for this life is theosis, and theosis means the conscious and unceasing presence of God within you, to become by grace what Jesus Christ is by nature... this is why there can be no sense of substitution in atonement. God's presence means God, our atonement is our salvation, and this means Jesus Christ, God becoming man so that man become God.

I don't know how helpful that analysis is, but feel free to ask questions or raise concerns.

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've seen your argument before, andreas and it is possible to embrace that theology and also see elements of substitution in the atonement. "Christ died for our sins, in accordance with the Scriptures". "I am the Good Shepherd ... I lay down my life for the sheep". "He bore our sins in his body on a tree". I don't "do" proof texting but these examples from John, Paul and Peter are just three of many, many in the scriptural tradition.

I appreciate the understanding that Augustine was wrong about original sin and so the whole meaning of atonement is seen against a different understanding of the problem of sin and the destiny of theosis. But these things of themselves do not require the ruling out of substitution. Or if you don't like the word, how about "on-our-behalfing". There is a sacrifice "on our behalf" here, indelibly, in the annals of our faith. I just don't see how that can be argued away.

So the Wikipedia article is, in your view wrong to see any element of substitution in the Eastern Orthodox understanding of Cross and Resurrection? Are you sure your view is typical of Orthodoxy?

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is a difference between substitution "on our place" and the non-substitutionary view I expressed "for us".

God benefits mankind, right? But he doesn't do that when we failed to do so ourselves. Because the benefit he brings is something beyond created nature's power. We could not bring God down to earth, and this is what Jesus Christ did. He didn't do that in our place, he did that for us men and for our salvation.

An element of substitution might get found in the rhetorics we have used (hey, I'm guilty about that myself!) but not in the theology that is being consistently expressed throughout the centuries.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271

 - Posted      Profile for Sean D   Author's homepage   Email Sean D   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I believe in theosis too! It is thoroughly biblical. Don't quite see why it's incompatible with the idea of substitution though: Christ becomes what we are (sin-bearing and thus under God's judgment) so that we can become what he is.

--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/

Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Because theosis has nothing to do with sin. God the Son did not become human because of the Fall. He becomes man because of us men and for our salvation, and he does that Fall (and sin) or no Fall.

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
There is a difference between substitution "on our place" and the non-substitutionary view I expressed "for us".

"For us" and "on our behalf" have exactly the same meaning in English. I know from the Latin version of the Creeds that we are talking "pro nobis" here - I presume the Greek is saying the same. But you can put me right if there is some subtlety there.

I think your concern relates to the idea that that which was done "for us" must not be seen as a necessary sacrifice for sin. To use your word, the problem with this view is that it seems to me to reduce the whole atonement argument in Romans 1-7 to "rhetoric"! I object in advance to any suggestion that my view comes from wearing Augustinian spectacles. It's just what the words say.

There is, for example, the following argument. "You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly ... while we were still sinners, Christ died for us". This language makes it clear that we needed help with the problem of sin, and it also makes it clear that the help came in the form of a sacrificed life and death. (There's a lot more like that, as I'm sure you know.)

So I remain puzzled. I've revisited Bishop Kallistos (I have some of his writings at home) and I'm still puzzled! But I'm happy to accept your explanation of the way things are.

Please remember that I am not here arguing for the "P". Simply for the "S"! Basically, I am a CV person who embraces SA as well. Nor do I want to rehash a 38 page thread - I have (at some cost) skim-read the pages but I can't guarantee this dimension has not been covered before.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271

 - Posted      Profile for Sean D   Author's homepage   Email Sean D   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Because theosis has nothing to do with sin. God the Son did not become human because of the Fall. He becomes man because of us men and for our salvation, and he does that Fall (and sin) or no Fall.

I mostly agree with that. But there is also sin - hence the need for substitution as well as all the rest of it.

--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/

Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sin is not something "compulsory"... Jesus' All Holy Mother, for example, had no sin. Plus, the answer to sin is forgiveness, which God freely gives to all people, not having a guy crucified!
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Plus, the answer to sin is forgiveness, which God freely gives to all people, not having a guy crucified!

So Pauline understanding, as exemplified above, is just rhetoric? And if it is not rhetoric, what is it?

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Barnabas, you are asking too much from me. I can't explain the whole Paul in one thread. I just can't! Paul has been interpreted in certain ways for centuries, especially by the Reformers. I can't un-do that all alone with a few posts.

Only thing I can say, to keep it short, is that what Paul wrote is authoritative for me as well, and I wouldn't go beyond his teachings on Jesus Christ. Paul is accepted entirely and fully by the Orthodox Church.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Perhaps best left there, andreas. I'm content with that.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271

 - Posted      Profile for Sean D   Author's homepage   Email Sean D   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Sin is not something "compulsory"... Jesus' All Holy Mother, for example, had no sin. Plus, the answer to sin is forgiveness, which God freely gives to all people, not having a guy crucified!

Afraid I just don't buy this... it might not be compulsory, but I do think anyone who accepts Paul as authoritative must accept that 'all' have sinned, and that the death and resurrection of Jesus were, in some sense at least, for sin. (Apologies if you have covered this earlier in the thread, I appreciate that I am a latecomer. And I appreciate that you can't cover the whole of Paul in one thread but I think you need to say something more to substantiate your point!)

--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/

Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I think that the confusion comes only if you see God as the source of both punishments and blessings. As I have said, I see God only as the source of blessings. All punishments are our own doing, or the work of the hells. It is, as I said, just like gravity. God is not the source of the "punishment" of being thrown to the ground when we fall. Falling, and the resulting impact, is simply what happens when we are unsupported. Hell works continuously to make us fall, but the Lord is continuously working to keep us from falling, or giving us wings, or helping us to land on a cushion. These means are called "forgiveness."

Every form of punishment works on this same principle. The sources of punishment are constant, as are the means of being delivered from punishment. God's love is constant and unconditional. The spiritual laws that govern these things are absolute, universal, and continual. The system is perfectly and precisely fair.

So it's not that God does not/cannot forgive those who do not repent. He forgives everyone. But the forgiveness does not help those who do not repent - because He is not the source of their punishment in the first place.

His forgiveness is the means to avoid the punishment of evil, if we make use of those means.

But if we fail to repent, we fail to make use of His forgiveness, and we suffer because of it.

The principle is simple. Virtually all consequences, both natural and spiritual, work on this same principle. Theological terminology only confuses the issue here, leading us to overthink something that is as straightforward as gravity.

Thanks Freddy. I don't quite understand you yet but I am beginning to see why we see it differently.

Surely your view means that there is a whole 'cause and effect' world which God does not control?

Surely your view only works if God's dealings with humanity is only a subset of humanity's dealings with the world? (He has no control over the physical laws of this planet... even though he created it!?)

I don't get it. If God forgives everyone then why should he stand by and watch while people hit the floor? (Because they choose not to repent.) How is that view significantly different from saying that God loves all of us but allows those who continue to reject him to be cut off from his presence forever in hell?

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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:

Surely your view means that there is a whole 'cause and effect' world which God does not control?

Surely your view only works if God's dealings with humanity is only a subset of humanity's dealings with the world? (He has no control over the physical laws of this planet... even though he created it!?)

I don't get it. If God forgives everyone then why should he stand by and watch while people hit the floor? (Because they choose not to repent.) How is that view significantly different from saying that God loves all of us but allows those who continue to reject him to be cut off from his presence forever in hell?

When you ask why does God "stand by and watch while people hit the floor", are you referring to God's seeming inaction on this temporal plane, or to the idea that God doesn't interact after death with those who have not embraced him in life?

I think I'm asking my clarification question poorly, but I don't understand what you mean by saying that Freddy's argument would only work if God has no control over the physical laws of this planet. To me, God does not EXERCISE control over the physical laws of this planet--does not screw with cause and effect--in this lifetime, in the normal course of things.

That doesn't mean he isn't able to act--as we see with the Christ who is resurrected, not spared.

[ 17. February 2008, 06:08: Message edited by: infinite_monkey ]

--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.

--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com

Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I believe it is pretty mainstream understanding to see God as both "Creator" and "Sustainer of Creation". All things hold together in Him.

Intervention is very much a human term - if we're not careful we get to a sort of dualism within which God, having wound up the universe in the original act of Creation, basically lets it run along, barring the occasional miraculous intervention. Or alternatively, a complete determinism within which human choices become little if anything more than our subjective impressions of a divine inevitability.

I think Christianity refuses both options, pronouncing both the reality of human freedom and responsibility and the reality of God's sovereignty. The challenge is to embrace both of these realities, and avoid the trap of analysing one or the other out of existence just because we cannot "see" how they fit together. I think this conundrum is at the heart of the theological arguments over the problems of sin, pain and atonement. We find different balance points between the poles of sovereignty and freedom.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 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 infinite_monkey:
When you ask why does God "stand by and watch while people hit the floor", are you referring to God's seeming inaction on this temporal plane, or to the idea that God doesn't interact after death with those who have not embraced him in life?

I'll try and explain what I mean a bit more.

Apparently God forgives everyone but those who do not repent experience the consequences of their actions - like jumping off a bridge.

We can only let God off the hook on judgment if these consequences are things that are outside of his control. If God deliberately built the world in such a way that these consequences would be his intention for those who reject his Son then it is no different from a conevo description of God's judgment.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
Afraid I just don't buy this... it might not be compulsory, but I do think anyone who accepts Paul as authoritative must accept that 'all' have sinned, and that the death and resurrection of Jesus were, in some sense at least, for sin.

Sean D (and Barnabas)

Where does Paul say that substitution is what happened on the Cross?

Let's begin from there, so that I can see clearly what you mean by substitution.

For me it means something (or in this case: someone) instead of something else (someone else). As in, Christ, instead of us.

My point is that this does not stand, because there was no issue of "instead of us" in the first place. It's not something we could have done to bring God down to earth. It's not something we could have done to become God. So, Jesus is not here instead of us, but for us, i.e. to benefit us through his presence.

If it's clear what I mean, now let's get to Paul. Where do you see Paul teaching substitution?

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
We can only let God off the hook on judgment if these consequences are things that are outside of his control. If God deliberately built the world in such a way that these consequences would be his intention for those who reject his Son then it is no different from a conevo description of God's judgment.

Getting God "off the hook" in my view means that we have built a crooked theology and we try to find loopholes so that we do not ascribe that theology to God...

How much different the ancient view is that God does not punish, and that even the most wicked creature partakes in good at some extent, and that even in the worst sin exists some good... The absolute zero for our scale is non-being, and even the worst sinner is a bit above that! It's not a matter of consequences as it is a matter of who we truly are. Because a wicked person is being tormented by his very selfishness, by his ego he is not able to participate in love. It's not a consequence as it is ontology, who we are.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
but I do think anyone who accepts Paul as authoritative must accept that 'all' have sinned

Paul also says that all have died, but we know that at least two persons, Enoch and Elijah, haven't died. Why is one part of the Romans being used that much by Protestants (all have sinned) but another (all have died, 5.12, 5.14)) isn't?

Secondly, at that same epistle (to the Romans) Paul says that "many sinned" and that just like the many sinned, the many will be made righteous (5.19). Why doesn't he use "all" there instead of many? And if you say that by "the many" Paul means "all", then this applies to death also (5.15), but not "all" actually died... Perhaps we could move that discussion on Kerygmania, or we could continue here, I don't know.

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 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 andreas1984:

How much different the ancient view is that God does not punish, and that even the most wicked creature partakes in good at some extent, and that even in the worst sin exists some good... The absolute zero for our scale is non-being, and even the worst sinner is a bit above that! It's not a matter of consequences as it is a matter of who we truly are. Because a wicked person is being tormented by his very selfishness, by his ego he is not able to participate in love. It's not a consequence as it is ontology, who we are.

Ah, at last I see.

Andreas, you are a repressed Augustinian. All these attacks against original sin are merely to deflect us away from your true love ...

If a wicked person is wicked in an ontological sense then his humanity must be evil at the level of being. Therefore either God created us evil or our beings have become evil somehow.

Wow, you really are much, much further into original sin and its effects than I realised ... come on Andreas, it is now time to come out of the closet.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Huh? [Ultra confused]

Perhaps I wasn't clear... It's not the "what" we are (we are "very good") but the use we make of that "what", the extent to which we are selfish or selfless.

Can reality be described on white-black terms? No. Take fornication for example. Friendship, union, intimacy still exist in fornication. It's misuse though, one's turning to oneself, is what makes it a sin. Still something good comes out of it, and still the person doing it partakes in the good of friendship, union and intimacy to a low extent. Which is why they do it in the first place. But the ego comes and makes it a sin, because the ego is the sin!

[ 17. February 2008, 10:29: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 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 andreas1984:
Paul also says that all have died, but we know that at least two persons, Enoch and Elijah, haven't died. Why is one part of the Romans being used that much by Protestants (all have sinned) but another (all have died, 5.12, 5.14)) isn't?

Secondly, at that same epistle (to the Romans) Paul says that "many sinned" and that just like the many sinned, the many will be made righteous (5.19). Why doesn't he use "all" there instead of many? And if you say that by "the many" Paul means "all", then this applies to death also (5.15), but not "all" actually died... Perhaps we could move that discussion on Kerygmania, or we could continue here, I don't know.

If you are saying that interpretations of Romans 5 handle 'all' and 'many' in different ways then - well done, welcome to roughly 2000 years of theological debate.

If you are trying to add to or move that debate on a bit, then please would you actually say something about what Paul means here.

I'm not one for simply proof texting but 1 John 1 is pretty clear here. We're all sinners - anyone who says otherwise is deluded ... not my words, the Apostle John's.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you are saying that interpretations of Romans 5 handle 'all' and 'many' in different ways then - well done, welcome to roughly 2000 years of theological debate.

Thanks for the warm welcome! [Big Grin]

In my view Paul uses those words interchangeably. What he means by all he also means by many. The problem is that you Protestant guys took it and made something out of it that Paul did not intend.

Paul says that "all died". Yet I don't see you arguing that Enoch died... Why is that? If Enoch did not die, while Paul says "all died", why do you have a problem with Mary not sinning, when Paul says "all sinned"?

In my view Paul is 100% Orthodox. And I will try to explain what I mean as the thread unfolds.

As far as I can see, Paul's problem is death. This is the real enemy. Being getting drawn to non-being. This is the tragedy of creation for Paul. And it is this that Paul ascribes to the ancestral sin. Not sin, but death. In which death "all have sinned". And he sees the death of Christ as a medication for death.

Paul does not say that even babies are sinners. Or that Mary was a sinner. He doesn't say that we are born sinners because of what our ancestors did. Neither is he saying that we are declared just. On the contrary, Paul says that we are to become righteous if we want to be Christ's disciples. Like John does in the same epistle you mentioned in your last post.

Instead of a forensic justification, Paul speaks about a real becoming righteous. Instead of an original sin, Paul speaks about ancestral sin bringing death into the foreground.

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:


If it's clear what I mean, now let's get to Paul. Where do you see Paul teaching substitution?


Well since you ask ....I'm missing church this morning, "courtesy" of a car breakdown, so I've got some time for a reply.

Just a few examples below. The emphasis on pronouns helps me to see what is going on.

Romans 4:25. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

Romans 5:6-8. You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his love for us in this; while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

1 Cor 15:3. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures .....

2 Cor 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it written, "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree".

And delving into other letters

Hebrews 9:27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people ...

1 Peter 2:25. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live to righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

1 John 4:10 This is love, not that we loved God but He loved us, and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

Someone instead of someone else? Looks like it to me.

andreas, I've used NIV translations and haven't checked these in other versions, so I guess there may be an issue of two there. But basically, substitution, "on-our-behalf-ing", seems an absolutely obvious conclusion to draw from this plethora of examples - and there are lots more.

Maybe this should go into Keryg, but I think we can safely leave that up to the Hosts?

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I agree fully with the verses you quoted, and I'm really surprised you see substitution in those verses! Really! I see those verses saying "He did it for you and for your salvation" but not "He did it instead of you, in your place"...

In fact, I'm so surprised you read substitution in those verses, I don't know how to go this discussion further!

[ 17. February 2008, 11:06: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
OK mate! I'm puzzled too. I'll give it a bit more thought - and maybe another Shipmate or two may be able to illuminate? I keep thinking Passover for some reason ....(scratches head)

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  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:
Surely your view means that there is a whole 'cause and effect' world which God does not control?

It's not that He doesn't control them, it's that He applies them consistently. Gravity is not arbitrary or inconsistent. It is always the same. It doesn't play favorites. Yet it is an extension of God's power - as is photosynthesis, evolution and every other physical law and process. The fact that world is always round does not mean that God doesn't control its roundness.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Surely your view only works if God's dealings with humanity is only a subset of humanity's dealings with the world?

That's right. God's relationship with humanity is governed by consistent laws that are the way that He deals with humanity.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I don't get it. If God forgives everyone then why should he stand by and watch while people hit the floor? (Because they choose not to repent.)

Are you suggesting that it is either God's will that people hit the floor when they fall, or that the hitting of the floor is outside of God's control? Surely there are other options.

For example, another option would be that it is immensely useful for there to be a force like gravity to hold people and other things on the surface of the planet. This use is so beneficial that the fact that people may occasionally fall and hurt themselves is outweighed (heh-heh) by it. God could intervene and stop everyone who is about to fall, or crash, or whatever, but the consequences of this inconsistency within creation, all things considered, would not actually be beneficial.

It works the same way in humanity's spiritual relationship with God. There are spiritual equivalents of "gravity" and spiritual equivalents of "falling." We know what makes us fall and we know what can prevent us from falling, and what can lift us up after we have fallen. These are consistent spiritual forces governed by God's consistent spiritual laws. God is in those laws, and the laws are the laws of love.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
How is that view significantly different from saying that God loves all of us but allows those who continue to reject him to be cut off from his presence forever in hell?

I don't deny the biblical teachings about the eternity of hell. But Christianity's view of hell is a caricature. There is not literal fire but rather deep, fiery unhappiness. People can choose between happy and unhappy alternatives in life, and they can also remain blind to the true nature of those alternatives. People can refuse to believe that hatred and revenge are unproductive and self-defeating, and they can persist in that refusal. Hell is simply the misery that is inherent in sin, whether the perpetrator recognizes their unhappiness or not.

God does not stand by idly as people make these choices and play out their own will. He is present with and loves every person on earth and every devil in hell. Without His presence they would instantly cease to exist.

But God's love allows every person to seek happiness in their own way, even wicked, self-destructive and futile ways. Just as applying gravity inconsistently would ruin the world, applying spiritual laws inconsistently would ruin spiritual life.

--------------------
"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 andreas1984:
the ego comes and makes it a sin, because the ego is the sin!

And who created the ego Andreas? Either God created us as evil or that 'ego' has become 'tainted' somehow.

Go on, I promise I won't tell anybody ... you [Axe murder] original sin.


quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
In my view Paul is 100% orthodox.

We all agree on that. [Razz]


quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
As far as I can see, Paul's problem is death. This is the real enemy. Being getting drawn to non-being. This is the tragedy of creation for Paul. And it is this that Paul ascribes to the ancestral sin. Not sin, but death. In which death "all have sinned". And he sees the death of Christ as a medication for death.

[Confused] Yes, and death is the penalty or wages for sin. He is pretty specific about that.
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 Freddy:
Are you suggesting that it is either God's will that people hit the floor when they fall, or that the hitting of the floor is outside of God's control?

Yep.


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Surely there are other options....

And the one you give (that this is an inevitable consequence of God creating humans with freedom in a physical world) seems incredibly similar to saying that 'hell' is an inevitable consequence of giving mankind the freedom to believe in or reject God.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I don't deny the biblical teachings about the eternity of hell. But Christianity's view of hell is a caricature. There is not literal fire but rather deep, fiery unhappiness. People can choose between happy and unhappy alternatives in life, and they can also remain blind to the true nature of those alternatives. People can refuse to believe that hatred and revenge are unproductive and self-defeating, and they can persist in that refusal.

No one is talking about Dante's Inferno here. So I'm right with you here.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
God does not stand by idly as people make these choices and play out their own will. He is present with and loves every person on earth and every devil in hell. Without His presence they would instantly cease to exist.


Ummh. A pretty good definition of hell is the absence of God's presence (e.g. 2 Thessalonians 1: 9).

Whether or not we cease to exist without his presence is another topic!

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
And who created the ego Andreas? Either God created us as evil or that 'ego' has become 'tainted' somehow.

Nobody. The ego is another word for being selfish. If we choose to be selfish, we speak of a selfish ego. It's the stance we choose to have towards life, other men and God. Ego is another word for selfishness, and people are not created and are not born with it.

Original sin would be if I thought people are born that way. I don't believe that we are born that way I believe we are born like Adam was created.

quote:
[Confused] Yes, and death is the penalty or wages for sin. He is pretty specific about that.
Sin is the sting of death. Death is ontologically prior to sin, it is it's ontological cause. We sin as we move towards non-being, because we move towards non-being. And not the other way around!

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Ummh. A pretty good definition of hell is the absence of God's presence (e.g. 2 Thessalonians 1: 9).

Err, 2 Thess. 1.9 does not say that!

Hell is uncreated, like Heaven is. And uncreated means that it is the very presence of God, in whom we all have our being. Hell and Heaven are names for the same reality, namely God.

[ 17. February 2008, 12:45: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Err, 2 Thess. 1.9 does not say that!

Sorry, I mistook that for 2 Thess 2.9!

Now I see what you mean, but it's an issue of interpretation, as far as I am concerned!

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  ...  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