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 5)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ...  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 mirrizin:
So...was Jesus' purpose to redeem our souls or to teach us ethics? PSA seems to be all about redemption. It doesn't really touch what he said while he was actually alive, except that he came to die.

Wow! *** Stop Press *** Mirrizin's problem with PSA as a model of atonement is that it is ... a model of atonement. Christendom holds its breath [Devil]

quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
And yeah, I like thinking dangerously. If I can't think dangerously, then the people who are happy to think dangerously will intellectually rip me to rhetorical shreds. Sorry if that disturbs you.

I wasn't disturbed. I was slightly surprised that if your point could discard at least three major world religions then somebody just might have thought of it before [Big Grin]

Is that what you meant by ripping to shreds? [Snigger]

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 mirrizin:
So...was Jesus' purpose to redeem our souls or to teach us ethics? PSA seems to be all about redemption. It doesn't really touch what he said while he was actually alive, except that he came to die.

Wow! *** Stop Press *** Mirrizin's problem with PSA as a model of atonement is that it is ... a model of atonement. Christendom holds its breath [Devil]

I'm not sure what that means? I think mirrizin has a point to answer. Is Jesus' teaching important or not?

Because if Jesus' function was solely to be a perfect sacrifice, why bother having a ministry? Why not just let Herod slaughter the divine innocent?

--------------------
"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 think mirrizin has a point to answer. Is Jesus' teaching important or not?

Because if Jesus' function was solely to be a perfect sacrifice, why bother having a ministry? Why not just let Herod slaughter the divine innocent?

The answer is in that word 'solely'.

Mirrizin does not have a point to answer because no model of atonement has ever claimed to either fully explain Christ's ministry or ignore it. An explanation of Christ's death is going to be just that - an explanation of Christ's death.

If you want to discuss whether it is a good explanation or not, then fine. Likewise if you want to argue that it is a model which contradicts his ministry or his resurrection, then fire away. However, to complain that it is a model which only explains the effect of his death is to miss the point of atonement models.

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:
Yes, linked. But they are not the same thing. the one represents the other.

Okay, so how you can distinguish them so completely then? (i.e. physical death NOT = punishment / spiritual death = punishment)
Because Christ distinguished them. He said:
quote:
Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Killing the body is one thing. Killing the soul is another. Christ is not saying that God kills the soul, only that the soul is more important than the body and that we should fear damnation more than bodily harm.

He also said:
quote:
John 11:25 “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live."
That is, though the body may die, the soul will live. The death of the body is no punishment here.

Also:
quote:
Luke 9:24 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it.
There is a clear distinction here between the life of the body and the life of the spirit. The life that is lost is the life of the body. The life that is saved is the life of the spirit. It is clear that the loss of life of the body is relatively unimportant, but that the life of the spirit is all important. Or is there another way to read this?

The point is that I am responding to your statement:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Secondly, why can't we see the penal aspect as inherent in the world God created? If death is the 'punishment' for rebelling against God, then is it possible to say that any death is God's 'punishment'?

The penal aspect is not inherent in the world God created. Physical death is inherent in this world, but not as a punishment. According to Jesus' statements, physical death is natural and normal. The body is unimportant compared with the spirit. The body in fact needs to die so that the spirit may live - or so Jesus seems to say.

I'm not saying that it is impossible to view physical death as a punishment. In the world of nature the slow and the weak are "punished" for their disabilities and die. Seeds that fall on rocky ground are "punished" with death. Flames that run out of fuel are "punished" by being extinguished. In that sense all death is a punishment. But this is neither penal retribution nor God's justice. No price is paid.

The punishment of "death" that Adame and Eve were promised in Eden was that they would deprive themselves of spiritual, not physical, life. Jesus came to restore that life, not by paying a price, but by correcting Adam and Eve's mistake.

--------------------
"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:
If you want to discuss whether it is a good explanation or not, then fine. Likewise if you want to argue that it is a model which contradicts his ministry or his resurrection, then fire away. However, to complain that it is a model which only explains the effect of his death is to miss the point of atonement models.

OK, I see what you're saying.

Equally, to those of us who hold great store by moral example as part of the point of Jesus' deat, it's a very blatant ommission.

--------------------
"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
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:
Mirrizin does not have a point to answer because no model of atonement has ever claimed to either fully explain Christ's ministry or ignore it. An explanation of Christ's death is going to be just that - an explanation of Christ's death.

Christus Victor does claim to fully explain Christ's ministry. His teaching was key to His victory over the power of hell. Every miracle and sign depicted His struggle and victory.

An atonement model that confines itself to explaining Christ's death misses the point of Christ's mission, in my opinion.

--------------------
"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:
An atonement model that confines itself to explaining Christ's death misses the point of Christ's mission, in my opinion.

Obviously you're entitled to your opinion but the other side of the coin is that the more you move towards one big model that explains everything, the more likely you are to miss details out.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
There is a clear distinction here between the life of the body and the life of the spirit. The life that is lost is the life of the body. The life that is saved is the life of the spirit. It is clear that the loss of life of the body is relatively unimportant, but that the life of the spirit is all important. Or is there another way to read this?

The NT seems to view both body AND spirit as important. Your language sounds very platonic - as if the body loses its 'soul' at death and it is only the soul that really matters.

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Equally, to those of us who hold great store by moral example as part of the point of Jesus' deat, it's a very blatant ommission.

Touche - any model that over emphasises moral example becomes so subjective it tends towards meaninglessness ... if Jesus' death wasn't actually achieving anything objective then it becomes less like a parent pushing their child out of the way of a car and more like mindlessly committing suicide.
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:
There is a clear distinction here between the life of the body and the life of the spirit. The life that is lost is the life of the body. The life that is saved is the life of the spirit. It is clear that the loss of life of the body is relatively unimportant, but that the life of the spirit is all important. Or is there another way to read this?

The NT seems to view both body AND spirit as important. Your language sounds very platonic - as if the body loses its 'soul' at death and it is only the soul that really matters.
I was quoting Christ, not Plato. Do you have an alternate reading of those quotes and the many like them?

--------------------
"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
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
How do you explain to someone who is not from a Christian tradition that a forgiving, and apparently humane God requires a blood sacrifice? If God is so loving, and if God is so powerful, why did he have to punish his own offspring in order to forgive the rest of us? Couldn't he have just done it by fiat and left a note? Why all the drama? Why all the carnage? Why the emphasis on retribution, when we insist that we're all against retributive justice?

As much use as you may get out of PSA, to many people, it's horrible to worship a God who seems so petty and senselessly cruel in his means.

Again, I'm not out to destroy PSA, just to point out that there are "issues" with relying on it as a sole source of atonement.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651

 - Posted      Profile for Starlight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Johnny S,

It's worth spending a bit more time on JJ's train analogy. If I see a train about to hit a child and I run and push the child out of the way of the train but am hit myself and die... then that is not PSA by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. If you think that is even close to PSA then you must have some sort of PSA-tinted glasses on which make you see PSA everywhere. Let's look at some of the differences...

PSA is takes place in a formal judicial setting. Punishment is deliberately marked out and assigned to one party, and another party then formally and deliberately takes that assigned punishment upon themselves. An accident with a train is hardly deliberate punishment. There is no formal setting where juridical punishment is being given or assigned. No one wanted the child to die, not me, not the child, not the train driver. However, through what was merely and simply an unfortunate combination of circumstances the child was going to die. It wasn't intentional, just coincidence and consequences. There was no formal transference of punishment to me. It just so happened to happen that I died while rescuing the child. It might well have happened that I managed to rescue the child entirely without injury to myself whatsoever. In other words there was no intrinsic connection whatsoever between my suffering and the child's not suffering - it could easily have been that we both got away without harm - ie there could easily have been no "substitute" whatsoever. That demonstrates a clear difference between this situation and PSA - in PSA someone must suffer the penalty, because it is a formal penalty of justice. In a rescue attempt, someone might suffer, but there are no laws of the universe demanded that they do, only coincidental circumstances and consequences causing them to suffer or not as the case may be.

So, let's review. In PSA there is a formal punishment which must be dished out. It can be transferred but not mitigated. Whereas in a rescue situation there is no formal punishment. It is possible that all parties might get away without injury, and circumstances will ultimate determine whether this happens or not. In a rescue situation talk about "justice" and "judgment" make no sense, and talk about "substitution" tends to be inappropriate too.

A PSA and a rescue are totally different in their premises, actions, and consequences. Let's consider two situations where the president is dealing with drug addicts:
1. The president declares they have broken the law and deserve punishment. The president arranges for his son to voluntarily take their judicial punishment on their behalf.
2. The president and his son want to rescue these people from their addictions and create an organisation to help rehabilitate them. The son suffers badly at the hands of one of the crazed addicts whom he is trying to help.

The first scenario parallels PSA. It is formal, judicial, and substitutionary. The second parallels and rescue, it is non-judicial, not concerned with punishment or substitution, but rather with attempting to make changes in peoples lives. In the first scenario, the president seems rather law-obsessed and yet his sense of justice is pretty twisted to both need to inflict punishment and to be happy to inflict it on his own son rather than the evildoers. In the second scenario, the president is loving and caring toward his subjects. At the end of the day, in the first scenario, the people aren't any better off - they've avoided the punishment thanks to the son but their situation hasn't improved any. Whereas the people in the second scenario have had their lives improved due to the loving care that their ruler has for them.

It is through looking at scenarios like this that I am baffled as to why anyone would want to believe PSA. The rescue scenarios are better in every way and present God as better in every way to the PSA scenarios. A God who manages to forgo making our situation worse by punishing us only because he punishes himself instead isn't much help to the world and frankly not one I would want to worship, whereas a God who is deeply concerned about the evil and suffering in his creation and wants to work with us to heal the wounds and change peoples lives is a God I want to know.

quote:
Likewise if you want to argue that it is a model which contradicts his ministry or his resurrection, then fire away.
A PSA reading of the cross seems rather unrelated and incongruous to Jesus' ministry as a social activist.

Jesus during his ministry stood up for the rights of the poor, sick, homeless, outcasts and "sinners". He healed them, spent time with them, spoke out against the authorities, the rich, the powerful, and the institutions and customs that were making life hard for these people. He is popularly viewed as a prophet and claims God's support for his ministry. He founded around himself a movement of followers to help him in his ministry and warned them to expect persecution. In response the authorities plotted against him constantly and eventually put him to death. He dies a martyr, but is vindicated by God who resurrects him from the dead. That's the story the gospels paint of his life and ministry, though few Christians seem interested in actually reading the gospels, since PSA tells them all they need to know about what Jesus "really" did.

PSA seems to tell a very different story. In PSA, Jesus' ministry fades into irrelevance as his death is suddenly elevated to an act of cosmic atonement where the spiritual sins of the universe become focused on Jesus' on the cross, where he endures infinite punishment from God on behalf of humanity. It's little wonder PSA advocates have little interest in the life, teachings and ministry of Jesus... the life of one social activist is nothing by comparison to the Event of Cosmic Atonement of The Cross.

In short, I think PSA is a made-up systematic theology of cosmic atonement which bears no relation whatsoever to Jesus' life and ministry as depicted in the gospels.

Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nicely put, Starlight. I like your conclusion.
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
In short, I think PSA is a made-up systematic theology of cosmic atonement which bears no relation whatsoever to Jesus' life and ministry as depicted in the gospels.

PSA pays little attention to what Christ Himself says about His mission, other than His declaration that He would give His life as a ransom.

I love your analysis of the train scenario, and your conclusion that the rescue scenarios are better in every way and present God as better in every way than the PSA scenarios.

Another huge advantage of the Christus Victor model is its implications for the way that salvation works. PSA goes to great lengths to avoid "salvation by works" and the "merit" that accompanies it.

Unfortunately, in doing this it makes obedience to God irrelevant.

Christus Victor attributes the "merit" and "works" to Christ as well, but by its very nature connects obedience to God with salvation. The reason for this is that the whole concept centers around overcoming evil, and how God gives us the power to do this in our lives through His incarnation.

--------------------
"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 
So JJ this argument resolves into what you regard as the definition of penal or punishment. Would you accept that punishment is simply a method of redressing wrong? Damages awarded in a court or a prison sentence are simply a way of compensating for the negative effect of a damaging or criminal action. In Biblical terms God punishes sin. He must address its effects and redress the wrong it has caused. Why? Because in his own nature is a standard of truth and righteousness which cannot have fellowship with our fallen flesh; also, because evil committed demands redress. Common law recognises this as a principle of natural justice. The issue could then become whether wrong is redressed appropriately or fairly. Throughout the scriptures there are detailed rituals always involving blood sacrifice that seem designed to demonstrate God's inability to interact directly with humanity without such a medium. Yet he wants to have fellowship with US, his creation, made originally in his image. There has to be a way of separating us from our ingrained and problematic tendency to evil. Christ, the unblemished lamb is the perfect once for all time solution. He is the everlasting God himself in human form arrived to take on and bear our sins and sinfuness. The satisfaction of justice, of redress will be fulfilled by his death, by his bloodshed. However, God need not leave it there, He resurrects him and exalts him leaving his death as a door of hope for us. If we accept it we can be seen as covered by his blood, as punished for our evil.. in him! At last we can approach the throne of grace directly without the medium of ritual sacrifice. We can as Hebrews says come boldly to the throne of grace where we can find grace and mercy to help in time of need.

To make God retributive or penal devalues him by making him like us? Read it the other way. We are in his image. We are, as we are, in this way because we are like him in our call and demand for justice. Conscience rebels at the thought of criminals walking free without sufficient penalty what ever form this penalty takes, whether it is restorative, retributive or both. 'I'll get you back' is one of the earliest instincts noted in our children. Liberal sensitivities need to get real. Scratch them and they'll react the same as the rest of us. God, in my view, made us like this because that's how he is and his love has found a solution that doesn't compromise this principle.

[ 29. May 2007, 04:39: Message edited by: Jamat ]

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
[QUOTE] In PSA, Jesus' ministry fades into irrelevance as his death is suddenly elevated to an act of cosmic atonement where the spiritual sins of the universe become focused on Jesus' on the cross, where he endures infinite punishment from God on behalf of humanity. It's little wonder PSA advocates have little interest in the life, teachings and ministry of Jesus... the life of one social activist is nothing by comparison to the Event of Cosmic Atonement of The Cross.

In short, I think PSA is a made-up systematic theology of cosmic atonement which bears no relation whatsoever to Jesus' life and ministry as depicted in the gospels. [/QB][/

Jesus ministry was to Israel. He presented himself as the awaited messiah and they decided to not accept him. I am deeply interested in his ministry. His ministry provides a fascinating insight into Jewish first century thinking. It provides a supreme example of one who flawlessly fulfilled the Mosaic covenant though not the Pharisaic interpretation of same. It provides timeless moral lessons and wisdom. It creates an example of submission to the Father for disciples to emulate. It gives insights into the nature and mechanisms of salvation. It encourages a supernatural component to enter ones faith. It provides object lessons of how God views human situations The list goes on. For anyone to generalise that holding a particular view of atonement causes one to view Jesus life negligently is offensive. You can think what you like about PSA. You can even downgrade Jesus to the status of social activist and you can pee in the pocket of everyone else that shares your view. But who made you judge jury and executioner of those that see the scripture though a different lens to you?
Incidentally, Recall the gethsemane experience. What caused jesus to agonise? It wasn't the cross, he predicted that. It wasn't the sleepy disciples. I put it to you that it was the vacuum of relationship with the Father. Something that he'd never known the lack of, which came upon him as the weight of sin descended and threatened to engulf him. Was this not the cup that he prayed to not drink?

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I was quoting Christ, not Plato. Do you have an alternate reading of those quotes and the many like them?

I don't see what you're arguing about Freddy. I was in no way contradicting the statements made by Jesus (how could I? [Big Grin] ) Just pointing out that you have seem to have ignored the NT teaching on the resurrection body. E.g. 1 Cor. 15 v 42, "The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable..." (taking up the analogy first used by Jesus in John 12).

We need to put all these concepts together.

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 mirrizin:
How do you explain to someone who is not from a Christian tradition that a forgiving, and apparently humane God requires a blood sacrifice?

You are not just attacking PSA here. All atonement models need to wrestle with the fact that sacrifice was, in some sense, necessary.

I don't particularly enjoy the idea but there is the minor matter of the entire OT and the book of Hebrews. [Razz]

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 
Sorry if this turns into a triple post but I've got to get on with other stuff!

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Johnny S,

It's worth spending a bit more time on JJ's train analogy. If I see a train about to hit a child and I run and push the child out of the way of the train but am hit myself and die... then that is not PSA by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. If you think that is even close to PSA then you must have some sort of PSA-tinted glasses on which make you see PSA everywhere.

It's funny because it seems to be you who have the PSA-tinted glasses and want to see PSA everywhere. I have never claimed that PSA is THE story, just a model which, alongside others, helps to explain the atonement. You are attacking a strawman here.

Also, while I agree that it is a helpful analogy, do you really think that you can dismiss a model by pointing out the weaknesses in a analogy that someone else has come up with. As I keep saying it is a MODEL, there are points of contact and points of divergence.

Just as with CV as a model there are weaknesses too - e.g. potential dualism with evil.


quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
PSA is takes place in a formal judicial setting. Punishment is deliberately marked out and assigned to one party, and another party then formally and deliberately takes that assigned punishment upon themselves. An accident with a train is hardly deliberate punishment. There is no formal setting where juridical punishment is being given or assigned. No one wanted the child to die, not me, not the child, not the train driver. However, through what was merely and simply an unfortunate combination of circumstances the child was going to die. It wasn't intentional, just coincidence and consequences.

<sigh> I just posted (was it Sunday?) a comment about 'consequence'. Why can't we see 'punishment' as the built in consequences to rejecting God in the world he created?


quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
A PSA and a rescue are totally different in their premises, actions, and consequences. Let's consider two situations where the president is dealing with drug addicts:
1. The president declares they have broken the law and deserve punishment. The president arranges for his son to voluntarily take their judicial punishment on their behalf.
2. The president and his son want to rescue these people from their addictions and create an organisation to help rehabilitate them. The son suffers badly at the hands of one of the crazed addicts whom he is trying to help.

Nice analogy Starlight. Unfortunately though it actually defends PSA rather than rejecting it. The one major problem with your analogy is that it completely ignores the incarnation. The son becomes a drug-addict too so that he can 'break the habit' and then works with his father to help the drug addicts. Of course, as a drug-addict, he has to live with the consequences of a fallen world (i.e. God's punishment) and therefore this fits perfectly with PSA. [Big Grin]


It is through looking at scenarios like this that I am baffled as to why anyone would want to believe PSA. The rescue scenarios are better in every way and present God as better in every way to the PSA scenarios. A God who manages to forgo making our situation worse by punishing us only because he punishes himself instead isn't much help to the world and frankly not one I would want to worship, whereas a God who is deeply concerned about the evil and suffering in his creation and wants to work with us to heal the wounds and change peoples lives is a God I want to know.

quote:
Likewise if you want to argue that it is a model which contradicts his ministry or his resurrection, then fire away.
A PSA reading of the cross seems rather unrelated and incongruous to Jesus' ministry as a social activist.

Jesus during his ministry stood up for the rights of the poor, sick, homeless, outcasts and "sinners". He healed them, spent time with them, spoke out against the authorities, the rich, the powerful, and the institutions and customs that were making life hard for these people. He is popularly viewed as a prophet and claims God's support for his ministry. He founded around himself a movement of followers to help him in his ministry and warned them to expect persecution. In response the authorities plotted against him constantly and eventually put him to death. He dies a martyr, but is vindicated by God who resurrects him from the dead. That's the story the gospels paint of his life and ministry, though few Christians seem interested in actually reading the gospels, since PSA tells them all they need to know about what Jesus "really" did.

PSA seems to tell a very different story. In PSA, Jesus' ministry fades into irrelevance as his death is suddenly elevated to an act of cosmic atonement where the spiritual sins of the universe become focused on Jesus' on the cross, where he endures infinite punishment from God on behalf of humanity. It's little wonder PSA advocates have little interest in the life, teachings and ministry of Jesus... the life of one social activist is nothing by comparison to the Event of Cosmic Atonement of The Cross.

In short, I think PSA is a made-up systematic theology of cosmic atonement which bears no relation whatsoever to Jesus' life and ministry as depicted in the gospels. [/QB][/QUOTE]

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 
Oh no, it's going to have to be a fourth post! Starlight's post was so long that, as you can see [Hot and Hormonal] , I forgot a whole bit at the bottom!

quote:
Likewise if you want to argue that it is a model which contradicts his ministry or his resurrection, then fire away.
quote:
By Starlight: A PSA reading of the cross seems rather unrelated and incongruous to Jesus' ministry as a social activist.

Jesus during his ministry stood up for the rights of the poor, sick, homeless, outcasts and "sinners". He healed them, spent time with them, spoke out against the authorities, the rich, the powerful, and the institutions and customs that were making life hard for these people. He is popularly viewed as a prophet and claims God's support for his ministry. He founded around himself a movement of followers to help him in his ministry and warned them to expect persecution. In response the authorities plotted against him constantly and eventually put him to death. He dies a martyr, but is vindicated by God who resurrects him from the dead. That's the story the gospels paint of his life and ministry, though few Christians seem interested in actually reading the gospels, since PSA tells them all they need to know about what Jesus "really" did.

PSA seems to tell a very different story. In PSA, Jesus' ministry fades into irrelevance as his death is suddenly elevated to an act of cosmic atonement where the spiritual sins of the universe become focused on Jesus' on the cross, where he endures infinite punishment from God on behalf of humanity. It's little wonder PSA advocates have little interest in the life, teachings and ministry of Jesus... the life of one social activist is nothing by comparison to the Event of Cosmic Atonement of The Cross.

In short, I think PSA is a made-up systematic theology of cosmic atonement which bears no relation whatsoever to Jesus' life and ministry as depicted in the gospels.

Of course the ministry of Jesus is important, no one would seek to deny that. Just because IYE others seem to is hardly a fair criticism.

These gospels, would they be the ones that give a disproportionate amount of space to the events of Easter week? I think it is entirely legitimate to say that the gospels themselves focus our attention (but not exclusively) on the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Why does Jesus keep going on about the necessity of his death? (e.g. 'The Son of Man must be killed'? (Mark 8 v 31)
These gospels,

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:
So JJ this argument resolves into what you regard as the definition of penal or punishment. Would you accept that punishment is simply a method of redressing wrong?
No, I wouldn't. I would say that this is precisely what punishment does not do, and furthermore is incapable of doing. Punishing a murderer, by, say the death penalty does nothing to help the original victim, and results in yet another death. How, then, is this redressing wrong. Rather, it seems like an attempt to make a right from two wrongs.

quote:
In Biblical terms God punishes sin. He must address its effects and redress the wrong it has caused. Why? Because in his own nature is a standard of truth and righteousness which cannot have fellowship with our fallen flesh; also, because evil committed demands redress.
Well, that is your assertion. I think that there are certainly occasions when God disciplines his people, and others where he acts such as to limit the amount of wrong that sinful actions can cause. We can interpret either of these, I suppose, as punishment, but what is absent from them is any hint that the motivation is as you describe it. I dispute, as you are well aware, your assertion that our sinfulness places any constraint on God as to whether or not He can commune with us. You have yet to demonstrate from scripture anything to back up your point of view, whilst I have, I think, demonstrated that the life of Jesus, His fellowship with sinners, indicates that, to God, this isn't a problem; rather, the constraints are on our side.

quote:
Common law recognises this as a principle of natural justice. The issue could then become whether wrong is redressed appropriately or fairly. Throughout the scriptures there are detailed rituals always involving blood sacrifice that seem designed to demonstrate God's inability to interact directly with humanity without such a medium. Yet he wants to have fellowship with US, his creation, made originally in his image.
I don't think that blood sacrifice demonstrates anything of the sort. Do you really think that God's desire is for him to recieve such sacrifices. This rather flies in the face of such verses as Psalm 51:16 and Hosea 6:6. The line of argument you are following seems to me to be the very one that got the people of Israel into such trouble. They erroneously thought that the sacrifice was to appease God, whereas it was actually to "appease" the people, that is, to remind them of the covenant that they had with the Almighty. The purpose of sacrifice was to cleanse their conscience, as per Hebrews 9:9, and to point them towards God's grace, which alone was able to restore them. Of course, as the writer to the Hebrews points out, this was an imperfect process.

quote:
There has to be a way of separating us from our ingrained and problematic tendency to evil. Christ, the unblemished lamb is the perfect once for all time solution. He is the everlasting God himself in human form arrived to take on and bear our sins and sinfuness.
Agreed!

quote:
The satisfaction of justice, of redress will be fulfilled by his death, by his bloodshed.
This in no way follows from your previous sentence. There is no "problem of justice" as opposed to grace, because God's justice is about putting things right, not punishing wrongdoing. And putting things right is about the healing, not only of the victim, but of the perpetrator. There is no need to satisfy the conflict between love and justice, because the two are the same thing (or, at least, justice is the word we use to refer to the expression of love in certain circumstances)!

Furthermore, none of this argument (concerning the ontological state of the believer, being freed from slavery to our sinful nature) is directly germaine to Old Testament sacrifice, which adressed a different problem, the pointing of our attention Godward, that we might trust in His grace and receive the forgiveness which has always been there for us. If we were capable of receiving that forgiveness, the sacrifices (OT ritual sense of the word) would have been redundant.

quote:
However, God need not leave it there, He resurrects him and exalts him leaving his death as a door of hope for us. If we accept it we can be seen as covered by his blood, as punished for our evil.. in him! At last we can approach the throne of grace directly without the medium of ritual sacrifice. We can as Hebrews says come boldly to the throne of grace where we can find grace and mercy to help in time of need.

I don't think punishment is in the atonement, and I don't think that you have demonstrated that it is. The reason that we can approach the throne of grace with boldness is because our ontological nature is transformed (supremely) by the resurrection, and our spirits are set free from our sinful nature, born again by the spirit of God, such that we no longer require the OT ritual/shadow of the new creation to point us Godward. It has nothing to do with punishment.

quote:
To make God retributive or penal devalues him by making him like us? Read it the other way. We are in his image. We are, as we are, in this way because we are like him in our call and demand for justice.
Well, of course we are in His image, but we are also fallen. I would be surprised if you really think that retributive justice accomplishes anything. Which is better, that a man is punished for stealing from you, or that he doesn't steal from you in the first place? The point about restorative justice is that God is able to "undo" the wrong, so that retributive justice is not needed. Our justice is a debased and limited justice, just because we aren't capable of "Undoing the wrong".

quote:
Conscience rebels at the thought of criminals walking free without sufficient penalty what ever form this penalty takes, whether it is restorative, retributive or both. 'I'll get you back' is one of the earliest instincts noted in our children.
Well, mine doesn't, but I guess I'm just strange that way. Regretfully, there are times when it is necessary that people are imprisoned for wrongdoing, in order to protect the innocent. Discipline is important in personal growth and character formation. There might even be a case for deterrence. But there is no way in which I think punishment is in any way a "good" thing.

As for the "I'll get you back" attitude, are you really suggesting that this is from the heart of God, or aren't you a little more confident that this is a result of our selfish, sinful nature.

quote:
Liberal sensitivities need to get real. Scratch them and they'll react the same as the rest of us. God, in my view, made us like this because that's how he is and his love has found a solution that doesn't compromise this principle.

Why do I feel that you are using the word "liberal" as an insult? I, personally, think it's quite a respectable term, just not one that I would apply to myself, at least, I suppose I am socially liberal, but theologically, I'm a supernaturalist, I accept all the main tenets of the Christian faith, and by any normal yardstick, I am probably pretty conservative. But, anyway, all that you have demonstrated is that liberals, like the rest of us, are fallen creatures. The fact that, in a given set of circumstances, we will all act in a similar way is not in itself evidence that such a reaction is acceptable to God. I think we have to be very careful in drawing conclusions about the character of God from the behaviour of His fallen children.

--------------------
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
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:
Equally, to those of us who hold great store by moral example as part of the point of Jesus' deat, it's a very blatant ommission.

Touche - any model that over emphasises moral example becomes so subjective it tends towards meaninglessness ... if Jesus' death wasn't actually achieving anything objective then it becomes less like a parent pushing their child out of the way of a car and more like mindlessly committing suicide.
Yep, well, that's what PSA pretty much looks like to me. (Interesting you should say that as a PSA-supporter, because if I said it as a non-PSA supporter, I'd be told that I was raising a straw-man. [Big Grin] )

As far as I'm concerned, Moral Example + Christus Victor is both objective and subjective. God teaches us that he forgives generously and openhandedly and he teaches us to forgive in the same way. In his resurrection he both effected and demonstrated eternal life and new creation. In his ascension he sits at God's right hand.

Human being forgiving human being rather than warring over culture and theology might result in the reign of peace. We can't have that, though, can we? We need "JUSTICE!" [Biased]

--------------------
"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
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:
I was quoting Christ, not Plato. Do you have an alternate reading of those quotes and the many like them?

I don't see what you're arguing about Freddy. I was in no way contradicting the statements made by Jesus (how could I? [Big Grin] ) Just pointing out that you have seem to have ignored the NT teaching on the resurrection body. E.g. 1 Cor. 15 v 42, "The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable..." (taking up the analogy first used by Jesus in John 12).
It is sown a natural body. It is raised a spiritual body. I don't see how I am ignoring the important doctrine of Christ's physical resurrection.

The point is that physical death is not a punishment. Physical death is normal and inherent in creation from the beginning. The spiritual body is what is raised incorruptable.

--------------------
"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 Jolly Jape:
quote:
There has to be a way of separating us from our ingrained and problematic tendency to evil. Christ, the unblemished lamb is the perfect once for all time solution. He is the everlasting God himself in human form arrived to take on and bear our sins and sinfuness.
Agreed!
quote:
The satisfaction of justice, of redress will be fulfilled by his death, by his bloodshed.
This in no way follows from your previous sentence. There is no "problem of justice" as opposed to grace, because God's justice is about putting things right, not punishing wrongdoing. And putting things right is about the healing, not only of the victim, but of the perpetrator. There is no need to satisfy the conflict between love and justice, because the two are the same thing (or, at least, justice is the word we use to refer to the expression of love in certain circumstances)!

This is an important point, JJ. I agree. The purpose of the Incarnation is to put things right, not to punish wrongdoing. There is no conflict between love and justice. Justice is the expression of love in accommodation to specific situations.

--------------------
"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 
Back again. I'd better make this one long post and addresses various issues otherwise I'll get into the same mess as this morning!

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Human being forgiving human being rather than warring over culture and theology might result in the reign of peace. We can't have that, though, can we? We need "JUSTICE!" [Biased]

As I have said before I yearn for the same reign of peace as you do where we just forgive one another. However, I have highlighted one sentence of yours above (obviously you didn;t mean it that way [Big Grin] ).

All of human history combined teaches us the truth of your statement - we can't have that! If we take your model of atonement there is only one conclusion we can draw while looking around - the 'Christ event' was a total failure!

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The point is that physical death is not a punishment. Physical death is normal and inherent in creation from the beginning. The spiritual body is what is raised incorruptable.

We're not getting anywhere here Freddy. You and I are using the word 'spiritual' in different senses (ISTM). Also that physical death is normal and inherent in creation is not a 'given'.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I don't think that blood sacrifice demonstrates anything of the sort. Do you really think that God's desire is for him to recieve such sacrifices. This rather flies in the face of such verses as Psalm 51:16 and Hosea 6:6. The line of argument you are following seems to me to be the very one that got the people of Israel into such trouble. They erroneously thought that the sacrifice was to appease God, whereas it was actually to "appease" the people, that is, to remind them of the covenant that they had with the Almighty. The purpose of sacrifice was to cleanse their conscience, as per Hebrews 9:9, and to point them towards God's grace, which alone was able to restore them. Of course, as the writer to the Hebrews points out, this was an imperfect process.

We've touched on this before JJ but I don't think I got to the bottom of your link between OT sacrifices and Hebrews.

I'm still not convinced by your reading of Psalm 51 and Hosea 6. In Psalm 51, as I have pointed out before, you are missing out verse 19. The Psalmist is correcting 'wrong worship' and concludes with 'righteous' sacrifices, which obviously include burnt offerings. You are right to critique the Israelite understanding of sacrifice but I see no warrant to reject the need for sacrifice altogether.

Likewise the book of Hosea is complaining (like James) about the connectin between belief and behaviour. Hosea is horrified what the people have done with sacrifice. It bears no resemblance to OT cultic worship (e.g. Hosea 4 v 12-13). Again there is no need to read this is a removal of sacrifice altogether.

Then when we come to Hebrews and your argument hits bigger problems. Hebrews makes it clear that sacrifice is 'necessary' (e.g. 9 v 23). Jesus has done away with the need for sacrifice but by giving himself as a 'once for all' sacrifice.

Even if you make sacrifice something for mankind rather than God it is still 'necessary' and therefore necessary for God even if in some derivative sense.

John.

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:
We've touched on this before JJ but I don't think I got to the bottom of your link between OT sacrifices and Hebrews.

I'm still not convinced by your reading of Psalm 51 and Hosea 6. In Psalm 51, as I have pointed out before, you are missing out verse 19. The Psalmist is correcting 'wrong worship' and concludes with 'righteous' sacrifices, which obviously include burnt offerings. You are right to critique the Israelite understanding of sacrifice but I see no warrant to reject the need for sacrifice altogether.

Likewise the book of Hosea is complaining (like James) about the connectin between belief and behaviour. Hosea is horrified what the people have done with sacrifice. It bears no resemblance to OT cultic worship (e.g. Hosea 4 v 12-13). Again there is no need to read this is a removal of sacrifice altogether.

Then when we come to Hebrews and your argument hits bigger problems. Hebrews makes it clear that sacrifice is 'necessary' (e.g. 9 v 23). Jesus has done away with the need for sacrifice but by giving himself as a 'once for all' sacrifice.

Even if you make sacrifice something for mankind rather than God it is still 'necessary' and therefore necessary for God even if in some derivative sense.

Well, I'm not sure my grasp of memetic theory is good enought to be anything near clear [Biased] . I'm sure a true Girardian like Seeker could do a much better job [Help] . However, you are right in implying (in your last sentence) that I think that sacrifice (in the cultic sense) is for the benefit of the worshipper rather than God. I'm not saying that this sacrifice was not necessary, given the fallen nature of the worshippers. I am merely saying that the point of the sacrifice was to direct the attention of the worshipper to the grace of God. There is nothing in the sacrifice itself that repairs the relationship with God. Rather, it is a reminder of the covenant relationship which is the true source of that restoration. A bit like communion, in a way. The point about redundancy was probably overstated, and should, perhaps, have been prefaced with "in an ideal world..." Of course, the world of Aaron, David and Hosea was no more an ideal world than is ours. The sacrificial system was a way of accomodating our weakness and reluctance to trust in the grace of God, and our desire to solve problems by violence. By it, people were able to remind themselves, in the guise of reminding God, that God could be relied upon.

But, as I say, I'm not the authority to consult on Girard. I actually believe his thinking is a useful tool to understand the subjective aspects of the Atonement, but I don't think it is totally convincing about the objective change in us and the universe wrought by the paschal event. But then, he's much cleverer than I am, and I might have got him completely wrong!

--------------------
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
Imaginary Friend

Real to you
# 186

 - Posted      Profile for Imaginary Friend   Email Imaginary Friend   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Conscience rebels at the thought of criminals walking free without sufficient penalty what ever form this penalty takes, whether it is restorative, retributive or both. 'I'll get you back' is one of the earliest instincts noted in our children. Liberal sensitivities need to get real. Scratch them and they'll react the same as the rest of us. God, in my view, made us like this because that's how he is and his love has found a solution that doesn't compromise this principle.

Sure, the conscience might rebel at the thought, but that doesn't make it wrong. I think you need to justify your position further in the light of parts of the bible like "love your enemy", "love is patient, kind, ... keeps no record of wrongs", "when a thief demands your coat give him your shirt also" and so on. How does God's 'need' for retributive justice fit with this pattern that Jesus and Paul give us?

--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough

Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by davelarge:
Sure, the conscience might rebel at the thought, but that doesn't make it wrong. I think you need to justify your position further in the light of parts of the bible like "love your enemy", "love is patient, kind, ... keeps no record of wrongs", "when a thief demands your coat give him your shirt also" and so on. How does God's 'need' for retributive justice fit with this pattern that Jesus and Paul give us?

Fair point Dave.

However, the question is this - does Jesus end the cycle of revenge by dealing with it once and for all (as PSA argues) or end it by saying that it is not necessary?

I know JJ disagrees with my handling of Romans 12 but I would argue that in Romans 12 v 19 Paul tells us to let go of revenge because we leave justice up to God, not because we reject retributive justice altogether.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Imaginary Friend

Real to you
# 186

 - Posted      Profile for Imaginary Friend   Email Imaginary Friend   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
OK, I accept that this is a valid reading of Romans 12. Good point.

However, what about the parts about what love is? If God is love (or Love?) then how does this fit with a demand for retributive justice?

(Note, I absolutely accept that God could require retribution - it is for Him to make the rules, after all. My contention at this point is whether or not he must have retribution.)

--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough

Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I know JJ disagrees with my handling of Romans 12 but I would argue that in Romans 12 v 19 Paul tells us to let go of revenge because we leave justice up to God, not because we reject retributive justice altogether.

What I find troubling in this idea is the implication that God is going to do our dirty work for us. The reading you propose does not seem to say, "Let it go -- what counts as justice is up to God." Rather, it sounds like you're saying that God will be the enforcer of your sense of what you are owed. There's a LOT of gospel support for suggesting that our sense of justice is flawed, and needs to be transformed by love.

--Tom Clune

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  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 davelarge:
However, what about the parts about what love is? If God is love (or Love?) then how does this fit with a demand for retributive justice?

There is an increasing move to try and define God by just one characteristic - i.e. God = love. I just don't get it.

Let's take 1 John as an example: 4 v 8 gives us God = love; 1 v 5 gives us God = light. Which is right and which is wrong? Which trumps the other?

Likewise we could go through the whole NT. Here are just a few I've picked out at random:

God is faithful (2 Cor. 1 v 18)
God is one (Gal. 3 v 20)
God is just [Big Grin] (2 Thess. 1 v 6)
God is a consuming fire [Confused] (Heb. 12 v 29)

While I will try to put all these pictures together my tiny little brain is never going to do it fully.


quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
What I find troubling in this idea is the implication that God is going to do our dirty work for us. The reading you propose does not seem to say, "Let it go -- what counts as justice is up to God." Rather, it sounds like you're saying that God will be the enforcer of your sense of what you are owed. There's a LOT of gospel support for suggesting that our sense of justice is flawed, and needs to be transformed by love.

--Tom Clune

I don't follow you Tom... or maybe I wasn't clear enough. [Hot and Hormonal] If I have to leave justice up to God then surely, by definition, I have to leave it to his justice and not mine. I have always seen PSA in this light. In situations where I feel agrieved I can take it to the Lord in the assurance that he will do what is right - and if, as likely, it is my petulance, then there is nothing to do and I will need my sense of justice transformed by love.

I suppose the key for me is 'leaving it up to God' and that means I will not presume how he is going to act in any given situation... because I'm not God. Whatever else we say about PSA at least it is God administering justice and not us.

John.

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:
The point is that physical death is not a punishment. Physical death is normal and inherent in creation from the beginning. The spiritual body is what is raised incorruptable.

We're not getting anywhere here Freddy. You and I are using the word 'spiritual' in different senses (ISTM). Also that physical death is normal and inherent in creation is not a 'given'.
I agree that we're not getting anywhere. But you are the one asserting that physical death is God's punishment on sin, and you have not demonstrated that this is true. Christ's physical death can't reasonably be seen as God's punishment laid on Him.

Do you really mean to say that it is not a given that physical death is normal and inherent in creation from the beginning? How could the world function without life-cycles? Or are you only talking about humans? And this is an underlying principle of PSA? [Confused]

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

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

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I agree that we're not getting anywhere. But you are the one asserting that physical death is God's punishment on sin, and you have not demonstrated that this is true. Christ's physical death can't reasonably be seen as God's punishment laid on Him.

Freddy it feels (to me [Biased] ) as if you have come into a conversation half way through. Some advocating the CV model have suggested that Christ only experienced physical death as the punishment of sin. I have been responding to them.

From verses such as Romans 6 v 23 Paul obviously saw death as the 'penalty' for sin. The question is whether Paul meant physical death or physical AND spiritual death. I can't see how he could mean only spiritual death since he keeps linking it with Christ's death which was, at least, physical.

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:
Some advocating the CV model have suggested that Christ only experienced physical death as the punishment of sin. I have been responding to them.

Sorry about that. I missed it. I would say that His physical death was not a punishment at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
From verses such as Romans 6 v 23 Paul obviously saw death as the 'penalty' for sin. The question is whether Paul meant physical death or physical AND spiritual death. I can't see how he could mean only spiritual death since he keeps linking it with Christ's death which was, at least, physical.

As I read it the primary meaning is about spiritual death:
quote:
Romans 6.20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22 But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
The wages of sin that are death must refer to spiritual death, which is damnation. I'm not sure that the primary meaning here is about capital punishment.

He does not say that Christ died as a punishment for sin. He says:
quote:
Romans 6.10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
It was sin that killed Him, not 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 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The wages of sin that are death must refer to spiritual death, which is damnation. I'm not sure that the primary meaning here is about capital punishment.

Who said anything about capital punishment (at this stage)? I just said that if Paul is referring to spiritual death he must also be referring to physical death. Do you really think that the 'death which reigned from Adam to Moses' (Romans 5 v 14) was only spiritual death and not physical?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If I have to leave justice up to God then surely, by definition, I have to leave it to his justice and not mine. I have always seen PSA in this light. In situations where I feel agrieved I can take it to the Lord in the assurance that he will do what is right - and if, as likely, it is my petulance, then there is nothing to do and I will need my sense of justice transformed by love.

I suppose the key for me is 'leaving it up to God' and that means I will not presume how he is going to act in any given situation... because I'm not God. Whatever else we say about PSA at least it is God administering justice and not us.

But this seems too cute by half. If we don't know what God will do in any given situation, then the notion of retributive justice becomes meaningless. It's just another way of saying that God will do what God will do. Retributive justice has no more claim to being on the list of things that God may do than, say, floating across the universe in a pink nightie.

--Tom Clune

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  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:
Back again. I'd better make this one long post and addresses various issues otherwise I'll get into the same mess as this morning!

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Human being forgiving human being rather than warring over culture and theology might result in the reign of peace. We can't have that, though, can we? We need "JUSTICE!" [Biased]

As I have said before I yearn for the same reign of peace as you do where we just forgive one another. However, I have highlighted one sentence of yours above (obviously you didn;t mean it that way [Big Grin] ).

All of human history combined teaches us the truth of your statement - we can't have that! If we take your model of atonement there is only one conclusion we can draw while looking around - the 'Christ event' was a total failure!

My model of atonement (and I stress it's only a model) is something like Christus Victor (ontological) plus Moral Example (subjective). I don't see how that's any more of a failure than PSA which has got an onotological element (just like Christus Victor) but has no subjective meaning for human beings since we can't bring salvation into being.

The only way I can see that you can argue that humankind is in desperate need of retributive justice is something like "Human sin will not rest without retribution, so God effected a faux retribution that satiates the wrath generated by human sin." The problem is that PSA insists it's God's wrath. My solution is still heretical to PSAers and PSAers still insist on divinising wrath and retribution.

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

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I don't follow you Tom... or maybe I wasn't clear enough. If I have to leave justice up to God then surely, by definition, I have to leave it to his justice and not mine. I have always seen PSA in this light. In situations where I feel agrieved I can take it to the Lord in the assurance that he will do what is right - and if, as likely, it is my petulance, then there is nothing to do and I will need my sense of justice transformed by love.

I suppose the key for me is 'leaving it up to God' and that means I will not presume how he is going to act in any given situation... because I'm not God. Whatever else we say about PSA at least it is God administering justice and not us.

Well, I'm not sure that either Tom or myself are rejecting the idea of "leaving it up to God". What we are saying is that, if you do read the text that way, then you can't draw the inference that, therefore, God will execute retributive justice in the fulness of time. Basically, the text is neutral about the nature of that justice and the way in which it will be executed. I read it as consonant with restorative justice, but the reason why this is possible rests not with this text per se, but with a wealth of other texts which suggest a restorative reading. What I don't think you can say is that it is incongruent with a restorative reading (nor can I, of course, say that it is incongruent with PSA [Razz]

--------------------
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 Johnny S:
Do you really think that the 'death which reigned from Adam to Moses' (Romans 5 v 14) was only spiritual death and not physical?

Yes. That is what he is talking about. It is also true that people died physically during that time, but that has always been the case and will always be the case.

Paul said:
quote:
Romans 5.12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.
The "grace of God and the gift by the grace" is about salvation, not physical immortality. The same is true of the "death" that he refers to. He doesn't mean that literal death came into being with sin.

Paul continues:
quote:
Romans 5.16 For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification.
Here he clearly contrasts the death and life he has been talking about. The one is "condemnation", the other is "justification." These are spiritual states, not physical ones.

Sorry to be pressing this point, but it seems fairly central to the problems with PSA and the superiority of Christus Victor.

While physical death certainly can be a punishment, and while some biblical language does refer to Jesus' death in words that can be taken that way, it is, I think, wrong to think of this as anything more than imagery or representation.

[ 29. May 2007, 18:47: 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
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, I'm not sure that either Tom or myself are rejecting the idea of "leaving it up to God". What we are saying is that, if you do read the text that way, then you can't draw the inference that, therefore, God will execute retributive justice in the fulness of time.

This certainly expresses something that I was interested in conveying. But I also wanted to insinuate something more -- I think that Johnny may have given more than necessary on the idea of retributive justice being hidden from us.

The impression that I have gotten is that many people who find value in PSA do so in part because they believe that God will balance the scales in the end. Further, the nature of Divine justice is presented in a way that is reasonably knowable -- within human bounds, of course -- through coming to know the scriptures.

Of course, that doesn't mean that we know everything that God will do to our tormentors in the here-after. But we have a pretty good idea of what they are in for, and can draw some genuine solace in that knowledge.

Perhaps Johnny really doesn't believe anything along these lines. It is certainly not foreign to many people who espouse PSA, however. And, while I don't share the view, I can understand how people might draw genuine comfort in the presence of their afflictions in this world.

--Tom Clune

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny S:
You are not just attacking PSA here. All atonement models need to wrestle with the fact that sacrifice was, in some sense, necessary.

Why is it necessary?

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny S:
You are not just attacking PSA here. All atonement models need to wrestle with the fact that sacrifice was, in some sense, necessary.

Why is it necessary?
Given that the scriptures have Christ praying in a way that appears to ask that He not be crucified unless it is really necessary, one might reasonably come to the conclusion that it was necessary in some sense. The next question, of course, is "in what sense," which is what this thread has been arguing about.

--Tom Clune

[ 29. May 2007, 20:30: Message edited by: tclune ]

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  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:
Sorry to be pressing this point, but it seems fairly central to the problems with PSA and the superiority of Christus Victor.

While physical death certainly can be a punishment, and while some biblical language does refer to Jesus' death in words that can be taken that way, it is, I think, wrong to think of this as anything more than imagery or representation.

Well that's where we'll have to part company then - I think 'death' refers to both physical and spiritual death, since God is both author and sustainer of all life.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But if you look at it, death seems to be worked into the system of life. If nothing died, then nothing could grow.

Why insist that death is such a bad thing?

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 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 tclune:
This certainly expresses something that I was interested in conveying. But I also wanted to insinuate something more -- I think that Johnny may have given more than necessary on the idea of retributive justice being hidden from us.

The impression that I have gotten is that many people who find value in PSA do so in part because they believe that God will balance the scales in the end. Further, the nature of Divine justice is presented in a way that is reasonably knowable -- within human bounds, of course -- through coming to know the scriptures.

Of course, that doesn't mean that we know everything that God will do to our tormentors in the here-after. But we have a pretty good idea of what they are in for, and can draw some genuine solace in that knowledge.

--Tom Clune

I've never been called cute before. [Big Grin]

I don't think that the kind of comfort in 'justice' cited above is incompatible with 'leaving it up to God'.

This is how I read Genesis 18 - esp. "Will not the judge of all the earth do right?" Abraham is pleading for God to show mercy but as he does so he acknowledges that it is God who decides what will happen, and whatever he decides will be 'right'. It is precisely this objective, external framework of divine justice that PSA rests on ... IMHO [Razz]

This is not about revenge - perhaps the person oppressing me is acting that way because of what others have done to him/her - it is about justice. I take comfort in knowing that God will right all wrongs, and has done in Christ.

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 mirrizin:
But if you look at it, death seems to be worked into the system of life. If nothing died, then nothing could grow.

Why insist that death is such a bad thing?

"The last enemy to be destroyed is death." 1 Cor. 15 v 26

"There will be no more death ..." Rev. 21 v 4

At this stage I will step aside and let you fight with 2000 years of orthodox Christian belief [Big Grin]

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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 Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
But if you look at it, death seems to be worked into the system of life. If nothing died, then nothing could grow. ...

... At this stage I will step aside and let you fight with 2000 years of orthodox Christian belief [Big Grin]
Before you step aside, could you remind me what the orthodox Christian belief says Adam, Eve, and all the animals ate in the Garden of Eden, before there was physical death? 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 OliviaG:
Before you step aside, could you remind me what the orthodox Christian belief says Adam, Eve, and all the animals ate in the Garden of Eden, before there was physical death? OliviaG

I'm not getting drawn into a 'creationist' debate about when death came into the world.

Mirrizin asked 'why insist that death is such a bad thing?' - to which I replied that the NT is very explicit that death (of human beings) is a bad thing. End of.

Goodnight. [Snore]

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny S:
At this stage I will step aside and let you fight with 2000 years of orthodox Christian belief [Big Grin]

Glady. Why did the authors of the bible say that death is a bad thing? [Big Grin]

And to give credit as due, I really like this:
quote:
This is not about revenge - perhaps the person oppressing me is acting that way because of what others have done to him/her - it is about justice. I take comfort in knowing that God will right all wrongs, and has done in Christ.
[ETA a positive note]

[ 29. May 2007, 22:49: Message edited by: mirrizin ]

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  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 mirrizin:
Why insist that death is such a bad thing?

"The last enemy to be destroyed is death." 1 Cor. 15 v 26

"There will be no more death ..." Rev. 21 v 4

The death that is meant here is spiritual, not physical death. He doesn't mean death, but hell, as with the fourth horseman of the Apocalypse:
quote:
Revelation 6.8 "So I looked, and behold, a pale horse. And the name of him who sat on it was Death, and Hades followed with him."
This horseman is the "death" that will be defeated.

Throughout the Bible "death" means damnation and "life" means salvation:
quote:
John 6:50 "This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die."

John 11:25 “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die."

It is clear from these passages that "eating the bread of life" and "believing in Me" will not keep people from dying physically. Jesus is talking about salvation.

I don't agree that Christianity has been unaware of this simple and obvious distinction for the past 2,000 years.

--------------------
"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
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 Jamat:
To make God retributive or penal devalues him by making him like us? Read it the other way. We are in his image. We are, as we are, in this way because we are like him in our call and demand for justice. Conscience rebels at the thought of criminals walking free without sufficient penalty what ever form this penalty takes, whether it is restorative, retributive or both. 'I'll get you back' is one of the earliest instincts noted in our children. Liberal sensitivities need to get real. Scratch them and they'll react the same as the rest of us. God, in my view, made us like this because that's how he is and his love has found a solution that doesn't compromise this principle.

And as a teacher of five and six year olds, let me be the first to tell you that there's no bigger mess in the world than 20 kindergarteners letting their "I'll get you back" side go at it unchecked.

I'll take that "liberal" and wear it like a badge of honor, but I don't think that means I'm dropping the call for justice. Again, justice and penalty ARE NOT synonymous. We all want the same thing--we want the wrongs done against us and done against others to come to an end. As I said many pages ago, I believe that true justice has to go beyond retribution. I don't want the murderer to suffer violence done against him--I want him to fully understand the violence HE's done against others. To truly repent--to turn away from that violence. And to turn towards some kind of making right for the people whose lives he's blown holes in. Not as penalty, but as penance.

There's a subset of other atonement models in which Jesus's death does that, for all of us--shows us the absolute brutality of our unchecked impulses to destroy what we feel threatened by, and forces us to choose our relationship to that brutality. The violence is man's--the reaction is God's. I honestly can't see the cross in any other way.

PS to Jamat--Oye, I've been quibbling with most of your posts. Let's go do Top Tens in the Circus, or something, so I can lavish you with Not Worthy smilies as proof that it's not personal. [Smile]

[ 30. May 2007, 01:13: 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
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651

 - Posted      Profile for Starlight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Johnny S,
quote:
I have never claimed that PSA is THE story, just a model which, alongside others, helps to explain the atonement.
Perhaps you could clarify what you think it helps explain. If in fact a Penal Substitutionary analogy is not a very accurate one for the atonement and if a rescue analogy was in every way better, then we would be better off dropping the PSA model entirely and using only Christus Victor. If you think we should consider PSA to be a worthwhile model then there must be some part of the truth you think it captures well or better than any other model. I’m curious to know what part of the truth you think it captures.

I commented you seemed to have PSA-tinted glasses because whatever the hypothetical situation given you seem to see a PSA model as present where others wouldn’t. Several times in this thread people have presented situations (eg JJ’s train analogy) and you have managed to see PSA as present and my mind has boggled reading your posts as I think “how on earth does he manage to find a PSA model in that?!?” I’m left wondering whether you see PSA even in your coffee. Now in some senses there’s no harm in you having a wider definition of PSA than the rest of us, so that more things count as being PSA related… but surely if you expand it too far, then “PSA” is no longer useful. If everything in the world is PSA, then to say that PSA is true becomes meaningless and ends up telling us nothing whatsoever about how the atonement works. In other words, the wider you make your definition of PSA the less usefulness it has in identifying anything in particular.

quote:
Of course, as a drug-addict, he has to live with the consequences of a fallen world (i.e. God's punishment) and therefore this fits perfectly with PSA.
No in PSA the punishment is “substitutionary” – Christ endures it “instead” of us. If Christ is incarnated and suffers the same punishments we suffer then that is not substitutionary and is therefore not PSA. To be PSA (in my view anyway) something has to be penal AND substitutionary, not merely one or the other. Christ suffering punishments with us is thus contrary to PSA not supportive of it as you seem to think. (this again is an example of my complaint above that you see PSA everywhere because you expand its definitions further than anyone else would)

quote:
These gospels, would they be the ones that give a disproportionate amount of space to the events of Easter week?
No more disproportionate than any other Graeco-Roman biographies devote to important events in the lives of the people they document. Jesus’ martyrdom was a pretty important event in his life no doubt about it.

quote:
any model that over emphasises moral example becomes so subjective it tends towards meaninglessness ... if Jesus' death wasn't actually achieving anything objective then it becomes less like a parent pushing their child out of the way of a car and more like mindlessly committing suicide.
As someone who holds 100% to a “subjective” moral example view of the atonement I find this rather objectionable. Jesus’ martyrdom and the movement he inspired has subsequently changed the lives of billions of people, the moral teachings have transformed millions of lives, and the social teachings have inspired thousands of charities which work with the poor, the sick, the imprisioned, the outcasts and the marginalised. His death has had marvellous and real world accomplishments even though nothing magical or supernatural was achieved on the cross.

Martin Luther King Jr when faced with death threats decided to continue his protest against racism nonetheless and died a martyr. His death wasn’t magical, but it set an example which has since inspired others. Was it akin to “mindlessly committing suicide”? Of course not – that would be a pretty offensive thing to say to King’s relatives. Jesus in the same way died a death that was inspiring and powerfully influencing but not magical. It didn’t objectively achieve anything in and of itself (ie if he had died in a cave privately and the world had never known then it wouldn’t have achieved anything because the death itself didn’t achieve anything in and of itself as it wasn’t a death any different to anyone elses), but it was subjectively effective – through the effects it has on us and in our lives when we hear about it, are inspired by it, and act on hearing it that it possesses real power to transform our lives and societies. In the gospels I see Jesus realising he needs to die as a martyr to influence people and that he is not going to be able to succeed any other way, and I see a movement of followers numbering in the billions that his life and death has inspired, a movement which has endured 2000 years and affected the lives of billions. His death was hence a moral example and was entirely “subjective” (in the sense used for atonement theories) and as a result was one of the most influential and effective deaths in history. I simply can’t imagine any possible comparison with a mindless suicide.

Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 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 infinite_monkey:
And as a teacher of five and six year olds, let me be the first to tell you that there's no bigger mess in the world than 20 kindergarteners letting their "I'll get you back" side go at it unchecked.

I'll take that "liberal" and wear it like a badge of honor, but I don't think that means I'm dropping the call for justice. Again, justice and penalty ARE NOT synonymous. We all want the same thing--we want the wrongs done against us and done against others to come to an end. As I said many pages ago, I believe that true justice has to go beyond retribution. I don't want the murderer to suffer violence done against him--I want him to fully understand the violence HE's done against others. To truly repent--to turn away from that violence. And to turn towards some kind of making right for the people whose lives he's blown holes in. Not as penalty, but as penance.

There's a subset of other atonement models in which Jesus's death does that, for all of us--shows us the absolute brutality of our unchecked impulses to destroy what we feel threatened by, and forces us to choose our relationship to that brutality. The violence is man's--the reaction is God's. I honestly can't see the cross in any other way.

[Overused] [Overused]

Thank you.

--------------------
"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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ...  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