|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Christus Victor
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I shouldn't really be taking part in this exchange as I haven't listened to the talks, my computer is without audio and printer at the moment, but, I'm having a problem understanding you here. How is God's real power in this victory anything else but Love as the icon of Extreme Humility shows? (Extreme Humility)
Dear Myrrh
I truly believe and confess that God is victorious and that His Victory lies in Humble Love. However, when one sees the phrase Christus Victor, at first glance one might think that there was a battle between Christ and Satan or Death, and that Christ won because he was powerful. This thing is not worthy of Christ. It was never an issue of power, it was never an issue of a war, where two opposing forces fight with each other.
I'm still not sure I understand you here. The very fact that it was love and humility which conquered shows it wasn't a 'conventional' battle (I do think the word humility carries with it a sense of cringing or 'being a doormat' which isn't what is meant here, Christ taught self-respect as well as respect for others), but we certainly feel it as a great power and rejoice in it at Pascha. Maybe I've not been following this well enough.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Johnny and Freddy,
Surely it was due to God's choice of him, his sinlessness and his essential 'godness,' confirmed by the virgin birth although he went through the cross as a man submitted to the father.
The messiah had to be Son of Adam, a Man, son of David , a king, son of Abraham, a Jew, and son of God, God. Jesus is unique in fitting all criteria.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
andreas
I think you miss my point, but then I didn't really explain it. So let me make amends.
Firstly, Kallistos Ware's three (or four) tests of the atonement models are not Holy Writ - or at least not to me. And I think we should both remember that they come after Kallistos has said these things.
"The cross is a mystery to be embraced with faith, wonder and adoration, through liturgy, worship, prayer and self offering, bowed down in silence"
"Approaches to the cross are in danger of trying to say too much".
"The Cross is not to be unravelled in a rationalistic manner through a series of arguments, but though symbols, liturgical acts".
"What we find is NOT a single theory but a variety of images. We should not isolate any one of these. We should not press one image against another. Safety in numbers should be our motto".
"These images are not alternatives. We need to use them all".
These statement ensure that the analysis he does carry out is, intentionally, a humble one and indeed that is his approach throughout. How could he use the language of rejection (as you do) after saying such things? And indeed he does not. Throughout, he uses the language of preference. He knows he must proceed with caution, since he has cautioned himself. He is restrained in a way that you have not been.
Now, specifically, on substitution. Your point is that Kallistos says
a) Re separation in lecture 1, unimaginable though it is, God the Son experienced the loss of God at the time of the cry of desolation and this was a real experience.
b) Despite this, in lecture 2 he nevertheless affirms that there is no separation in the Godhead.
You miss my point again - incidentally, I think the excellent Kallistos Ware in this instance misses his own point as well!
I am not arguing that Kallistos Ware contradicts himself here. These statements above are not necessarily contradictory. This mysterious experience of God the Son, real to Him at this point as Kallistos affirms, does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there was at that time an ontological separation. I hesitate to use the word "subjective" when considering this unimaginable experience (Kallistos calls it unimaginable) of God the Son at this point. But it is the nearest word I can find. In any case, if the experience is for God the Son alone, alone in his abandoned loneliness, desolation and "yes, even despair" (Kallistos' words) at this point, that does not make the experience of God the Son, and His consequential suffering, any the less real. Indeed this may be how Kallistos Ware sees it - it would certainly be consistent with his words. That is a perfectly possible conclusion from lecture 1 and lecture 2 taken together.
Nor do I believe the substitutionary model requires more than that real experience in any case. No one who sees the value of substitution argues for any permanent tearing in the "fabric" of the Godhead, and all arguments see the restoration of the full communion of the Godhead before Christ's death. In substitutionary atonement, as in other models, the cry "It is accomplished. Father into your hands I commit my Spirit" says it all.
In short, if the experience of God the Son is real to Him, despite the continuation of union in the Godhead, then substitution, properly understood in that mysterious light, would actually pass the second test, not fail it. There need be no objective separation in the Godhead. (I think Penal Substitutionary Atonement would need the separation to be objective, but I am not arguing in favour of that model, which is in any case a subordinate variation of SA.)
Personally, I am less concerned than you whether there was, or was not, an ontological break in the union of the Godhead at this point. What I am saying is that if you want to hold to that doctrine, it is actually possible to see substitutionary atonement in comformity with that doctrine.
Personally, when confronting so great a mystery, I want to do no other than to recognise the same truth that Kallistos Ware quotes from the Holy Saturday liturgy. On this issue "let all mortal flesh keep silent". I think we would all be wise to do the same.
On one other point, andreas, I would be grateful for your further consideration. Do you now accept, as does Metropolitan Kallistos, that substitution is a New Testament theme and some of the Fathers have certainly used this idea in their writings about the meaning of the Cross? Numpty and I have been banging our heads against your denial of these points for long enough now. Will you please concede this point, or, if you cannot, will you please concede that on this point your opinion is at variance with Metropolitan Kallistos Ware? I'll be happy with either confirmation. I do not see that you have a third option.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Johnny and Freddy,
Surely it was due to God's choice of him, his sinlessness and his essential 'godness,' confirmed by the virgin birth although he went through the cross as a man submitted to the father.
The messiah had to be Son of Adam, a Man, son of David , a king, son of Abraham, a Jew, and son of God, God. Jesus is unique in fitting all criteria.
I think we are all agreed on that Jamat.
My question is why was it necessary for Jesus to be fully human and fully God, and why was that necessity tied up with his death?
IMO PSA answers those questions by saying that only a perfect life can take all the wickedness and rebellion of the world, like the scapegoat on the day of atonement in Leviticus 16. (BTW As I have commented previously it is interesting that in the book of Hebrews - with its focus on the sacrificial system - calvary is described as being 'outside the camp' in chapter 13.)
I'm still interested in how CV answers those questions.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My question is why was it necessary for Jesus to be fully human and fully God, and why was that necessity tied up with his death?
IMO PSA answers those questions by saying that only a perfect life can take all the wickedness and rebellion of the world, like the scapegoat on the day of atonement in Leviticus 16. (BTW As I have commented previously it is interesting that in the book of Hebrews - with its focus on the sacrificial system - calvary is described as being 'outside the camp' in chapter 13.)
I'm still interested in how CV answers those questions.
I think you may miss the point that CV does indeed connect Incarnation, Life, Death, Resurrection, Ascension. It cannot be properly understood in isolation from the whole. God gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus is victorious both because of who He is and what He does.
And as you will have seen from the above, I personally give value to the theme of substitutionary atonement which I take as truth, together with CV. I am satisfied that there is at least one influential Orthodox voice who recognises that substitutionary atonement is indeed a New Testament theme and the idea of it has been used by the early church fathers to illuminate the meaning of the cross. Precisely the same may be said about CV. Indeed one can hardly read 1 Cor 15 without coming to that conclusion. IMO CV does illuminating things which PSA does not, and SA does illuminating things which CV does not.
We do well to take Kallistos Ware's wise advice. There is safety in numbers here - there is more than one NT theme at work. And it is dangerous to push the logic of any one theme too far to the exclusion of others. We speak of what we truly see but barely know.
Kallistos Ware has a really good joke in lecture 2. Recalling a notice read at a railway station "Do not proceed beyond this point. Fine £50 for transgression". He observes that there should be a warning for theologians who go beyond that point. "Fine; a considerable time of purification in the next life". Go on, you can have a chuckle even though you probably see Purgatory as another error! I think it is really good advice.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
As Myrrh and Richard Collins suggest, it was because Christ was divine.
But neither have explained why / how that makes a difference!
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
What was happening, as I understand it, was that entire communities of devils were encountering and being defeated by Jesus throughout the course of His lifetime. This does not happen with any ordinary individual because we actually have no power at all and cannot defeat any evil spirit. Our victories are from the power of God, because only He has power.
True - but Jesus was not unique in this. Elisha's ministry in the OT was very similar.
You still haven't explained what it was about the ministry of Jesus that was completely unique to him and why the NT specifically says that it was his death that brought us freedom.
OK, John, in one word - authority. Jesus was the only One who was able to demonstrate forgiveness (by showing that God's heart was to redeem and not to punish, however great the offence) because He was the one with the power to forgive sins (ie sins against God). And, of course, it was the actualising humility of forgiveness which destroyed (and destroys) sin. Basically, the power of God is never more powerful or effectual than when it is expressed in the (to us) weakness and vulnerability of love. All heaven's legions of angels would not be up to the task of defeating the power of sin and death in the cosmos. That task required power that only God has.
Andreas, I'm truely astonished that nearly 50 pages into this thread, you hadn't realised that when we talk of the "victor" in CV, we mean that He achieved victory by means of His own defeat, as it were.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
B62,
I'll buy that. There are so many 'themes' going on in scripture attempting to describe and 'explain' the nature of the Atonement.
I find it interesting that Christ's passion itself occured over Passover, an event which certainly involved the 'sacrifice' of an animal (the Lamb) but whose national theological identity was wrapped up in escape from slavery and victory over ones enemies (hence the politically sensitive nature of Passover during Roman occupation). Passover is NOT Yom Kippur and the Jews would have well understood this.
The ideas behind SA/PSA definately tie in with the levitical sacrificial structure (as Johnny points out, the scape goat is sent 'outside' the city) but that prior (and post) to the levitical system one has event of Passover and the promise of the Prophets (especially concerning God's victory over his enemies) which ties in with the Kingship (a post levitical development), so scripture is already finding other ways to describe the atonement which step outside of the sacrifical model.
Paul, being a good Jew obviously uses all of the textual themes at his disposal so it's unsurprising to find themes of substitutionary sacrifice/death AS WELL AS victory over enemies and the DEFEAT of death (achieved by the 'king').
I guess what we're debating is how the later church takes up these pre and post Christ scriptural themes and work them into the system of Christian dogmatic theology. The eastern church (I would say coming from the early semitic church) went one way and the western church went another way such that now the Catholics make a film called 'The Passion', which has about 3 minutes on the Resurrection and the Orthodox sing endlessly about the Resurrection and concentrate of the 'victory' motif somewhat more.
I think we all accept it's a both/and situation but it's interesting to see how and why the different churches went with the different approaches.
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
OK, John, in one word - authority. Jesus was the only One who was able to demonstrate forgiveness (by showing that God's heart was to redeem and not to punish, however great the offence) because He was the one with the power to forgive sins (ie sins against God). And, of course, it was the actualising humility of forgiveness which destroyed (and destroys) sin.
Yes, that's it. No one but God has the power and authority to defeat hell. The crucifixion was the last step in this work, as He prayed for the whole world and forgave them on the cross.
Also, no one but God as the Word could teach the divine truth with authority, to the point where He could say that His words were life:
quote:
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
He said that this was the purpose of His coming:
quote:
John 18.34 For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice
This why He is the light, and why it is so important for us to believe in Him and believe in His words. As He says:
quote:
John 12:46 I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness. 47 And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.
Only Jesus as God come into the world could speak these words. The prophets could not teach these things, because they spoke from visions, or from the angel of the Lord, and were not actually divine themselves. Similarly, Jesus needed to be human in order to make God visible to people in the world.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
I'm probably starting a parallel idea here, but I've been wondering how the differing theories of atonement tie in to the notion of 'Sin'.
I was thinking that 'Sin' is both the expression of a disordered human nature/will as well as the means to consequential outcomes (such as suffering, disease, death et...). As I see it, the Torah saught (as all 'law' seeks) to contain disordered human will by stressing the consequences: 'If you do such-and-such then such-and-such will happen to you' (either as a process of cause and effect such as eating too many calories making you fat, or by deliberate intervention such as imprisonment for violent crime). And we know that this can be an effective system of deterence (as my 3 year old daughter is finding out!). However, such systems - as much as they can shape human will - can't deal wtih the fundamental distortion at it's very core, thus even the Saints 'sinned'. Instead, we each need a renewed 'nature' or 'will' which simply doesn't Sin and so needs no deterence.
It's this ontological exchange which is at the core of what God achieved in Christ and which forms the basis of our 'atonement'. Because we acquire new natures we are 'fit for heaven' and so are able to abide the presence of God.
As B62 has been at pains to point out, such an exchange can well be described in terms of a 'substitution', where we hand over our fallen self to Christ (to die on the cross) and receive his risen life into ourselves.
The 'problem of penality' therefore arises when we consider what part 'punishment' plays/played in the above situation. Since punishment (whether cause-and-effect or externally applied) deals with the consequence of Sin I see it as working 'further down stream' but NOT at the point of ontological exchange (the source of the river).
Of course, we all live in these 'inbetween times' where we are (present continous) learning to put off Adam and put on Christ, to become what we are, so there will be both processes at work. We still live in a fallen world, with fallen human will so Sin will continue to be present and will thus lead to consequences (and need to be 'deterred' by consquences) - this is a simple fact of interim 'containment', however AT THE SAME TIME the Kingdom of God is advancing, humans are learning to put on Christ, to exchange their wills and natures for His and so, in many places, Sin and Consequences can be reversed and (sometimes) overcome.
Certainly the sacrifical metaphors work very strongly in terms of understanding the basis of this ontological, substitutionary exchange (the pure one dies to destroy our impurity so that we might receive his purity) but I'm just not sure where the specific notion of 'punishment' fits into this.
On Yom Kippur, the goat that bore the sins wasn't the animal that was killed, as I've said Passover isn't a festival of sin/guilt-atonement.
This is the problem I have with specifically PENAL SA.
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Richard,
there is one big problem. If our salvation is ontological, if through Jesus Christ we can become Jesus Christs, this is completely different to a forensic approach of salvation.
It's one thing to say, we gave to Christ our fallen nature, and He gave us incorruptibility, and quite another to say that Jesus was crucified instead of us. And as far as I can see, Barnabas did not go for the first interpretation of substitution, which, after all, is no real, literal, substitution at all!
This is why substitution is totally unacceptable to me. Because it says that Christ was crucified instead of us. There was no issue of us doing something in the first place, there was no issue of us saving ourselves or of us getting punished for our sin.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Dear Barnabas
As you probably read from my reply to Richard, I have no problem with us offering our wounded human nature to Christ, and him giving us back salvation. I doubt you would accept that as a proper substitution though!
Like I said yesterday, I don't mind the imagery, but I do mind the philosophical explanations. And up to the introduction of Kallistos' speeches, we haven't been discussing imagery, but philosophical explanations.
The Cross is in fact a Mystery. But what does this mean? For me, it means that it all has to do with Who Jesus Christ Is. And Jesus Christ is a Mystery, a Great Mystery. God is a Mystery, Man is a Mystery. The Mysteries of the Church are Mysteries, Salvation is a Mystery. Because of Who Jesus Christ is, because of Who God Is.
One last point. In his second lecture, metropolitan Kallistos does not say that there was no separation in the Godhead. He says that even when My God, my God, why have you forsaken me, is spoken, there is no separation between Christ and God. And Christ is the Godman, and he is not separated from God the Father in both His Godhead and His Humanity!
It's interesting how you thought he meant the Godhead. But do listen to that part again. He does not say there was no separation in the Godhead. He said there is no separation between Christ and God the Father, even when "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me" is said.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Andreas,
That's why I prefer the term 'representation' to 'substitution'. Such representation is the definitive 'priestly ministry' of humanity which is pioneered (c.f Hebrews 12) by Christ but something to which we are all called (c.f. 2 Corinthians the 'ministry of reconciliation'). He represents our fallen nature in his death and suffering, but we identify with this ministry in and through our own suffering and death (esp. if 'for the world').
This whole us-in-him-and-he-in-us is key to my understanding of the Christian identity and vocation which speaks of that ontological exchange and union about which I spoke.
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
OK, John, in one word - authority... That task required power that only God has.
Thanks JJ. I completely agree that it comes down to authority.
I also appreciate how frustrating you must find it for me to keep asking this question ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) - but I still don't see why God had to (and the NT seems to insist that he did) use his authority through the death of Jesus? What was it about the death of Jesus that uniquely displays his authority?
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
I think we all accept it's a both/and situation but it's interesting to see how and why the different churches went with the different approaches.
Amen to that!
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Certainly the sacrifical metaphors work very strongly in terms of understanding the basis of this ontological, substitutionary exchange (the pure one dies to destroy our impurity so that we might receive his purity) but I'm just not sure where the specific notion of 'punishment' fits into this.
But surely this works perfectly as a transactional metaphor - our sin is put onto Jesus who dies with it - Jesus sucks our poison into himself. That much is CV. The problem is that it is only a metaphor - Jesus doesn't actually have 'sin lines' going into his body. So some abstract concept is needed to explain how this transaction might be possible. 'Punishment' is the only biblical answer I've ever come across.
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
On Yom Kippur, the goat that bore the sins wasn't the animal that was killed, as I've said Passover isn't a festival of sin/guilt-atonement.
But as you yourself have said Jesus fulfils all the aspects of the OT. Do you really expect there to have to be two Jesus' (one crucified and one wandering in the desert) for Yom Kippur to be alluded to?
... oh, yes, and I'm still not convinced that the Passover doesn't have an element of guilt-atonement. Do you really believe that Israelites could read Exodus and then Leviticus and not think, "Ummh, lamb sacrificed ... that means cleansing from sin"?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Johnny,
I'm trying to suggest that there are many OT allusions to the Atonement, some sacrificial, some therapeutic, some military and that - in Christ - all these threads are woven together to make a rich tapestry whose 'synthesis' can't be unpicked without loosing the total picture.
The dogma of the Church then seeks to articulate these themes in a way which does 'justice' (ha!) to that garment woven by Christ himself along with his immediate Apostles (and their disciples, and their disciples etc...).
Now, the core debate MUST be how did the early Fathers intepret these themes and express them? I am no patristics scholar, but again and again when I read books and essays here and there it's more often the 'Victor' theme which I discover (which is evidenced by the use of such themes in Orthodox liturgy which is VERY conservative and harks back to the byzantine times strongly) ALTHOUGH clearly, as B62 and Numpty demonstrate, there are also the themes of sacrificial substitution AS WELL AS escaping from punishment (I said it was both/and!).
So I'm asking:
a) Why is this?
b) Why did the 'west' take the predominantly 'penal' line that it did?
c) Why are modern (conservative) evangelicals still so enamoured by a majority 'penal' explanation? Whence the Victor theme?
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Dear Richard
From my reading, I offer two things:
First, the ancient fathers didn't have differences about these things. Take Western fathers like Ambrose, Hilary, Hippolytus, Ireneos, Jerome, and Eastern fathers like Athanasius, Gregory, Basil, Cyril... They are in perfect agreement with each other.
Second, while we make use of the Christus Victor imagery, we don't really use it as a philosophical explanation. As far as I can see, our explanation is the change in being that Christ effects, ALONE. God became man so that man becomes God. The rhetorics might be rich and diverse, but the substance, the truth is one and the same.
Now, I don't think the difference between let's say me and Johny here is one of imagery, but I think it's one of substance. And this is what matters. I was reading from I think it was fr. Kimel something the previous Pope wrote, and I found myself disagreeing with the substance of what the Pope was saying about how Christ satisfied divine justice on the cross. The cross is about injustice, not about justice! Here Notice how father Kimel speaks of Saint Isaac's rhetorics. For me, that great Saint is not being rhetorical in the least, and to see the Truth he conveys as rhetorics shows a real difference in approaches. Of course, what the Pope said is very nuanced, but the problem is still there.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Dear Barnabas
One last point. In his second lecture, metropolitan Kallistos does not say that there was no separation in the Godhead. He says that even when My God, my God, why have you forsaken me, is spoken, there is no separation between Christ and God. And Christ is the Godman, and he is not separated from God the Father in both His Godhead and His Humanity!
It's interesting how you thought he meant the Godhead. But do listen to that part again. He does not say there was no separation in the Godhead. He said there is no separation between Christ and God the Father, even when "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me" is said.
You are right, andreas, but it makes no difference to the argument.
Metropolitan Kallistos says two things.
1. God the Son really experiences separation from God
2. There is no separation between God the Son and God the Father.
You are ignoring the possibility that both are true. I am suggesting that, paradoxically, both can be true, and I see Kallistos Ware saying that both are true when both lectures are taken together. So how can both be true? You are ducking the question.
Now I do not mind if you do that, I do not mind if you join me in saying that on some issues it is best to be silent. But you are not silent. I think you are not silent because you deny the truth of the first statement. Unlike Kallistos Ware.
Please do me and yourself a favour. Try to jump out of your doctrinal box and look at the real implications of Kallistos Ware's paradoxical pair of beliefs? And if your considered answer is "Kallistos Ware is in my opinion wrong", then we can drop it - we can agree to disagree. Personally, I think Kallistos Ware is right and I think he honours both scripture and the patristic record in saying so. I wont beat out my brains yet again by pointing to the incontrovertible evidence of St John Chystostom's use of the idea of vicarious atonement in his explanations of the Cross. You appear to be isolated on this thread if you continue to believe that has not been demonstrated.
You mentioned earlier that when Metropolitan Kallistos was discussing the cry of dereliction, he did not quote from the Fathers. Do Matthew and Mark not count? If Jesus said it, then he meant it. (As Kallistos Ware says). It is really very hard to get around that simple statement without doctrinal rationalisation. Millions upon millions of Christians all over the world have taken, do take, that statement at face value. Why should we believe you when you say we should not? Particularly when there are other voices in Orthodoxy saying that we should?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
For the pure love of God, our difference is not because you accept what the bible says while I am not. Our difference is because we interpret what the bible says differently.
Of course I accept that Christ really prayed that prayer, that he really meant what he was chanting. There is no disagreement here. The disagreement comes when you think your interpretation of what Christ meant is the only possible interpretation. We have had that discussion before. I believe in what Christ said, and I see him referring to a very physical abandonment, not a severance of communion!
P.S. The metropolitan does not say in lecture 2 that there is no separation between God the Father and God the Son. He says there is no separation between Christ and God the Father. Christ is Godman. Also, could you quote the exact words from lecture 1 that say "God the Son really experiences separation from God"?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
This is getting frustrating for me. As far as I can see, father Gregory and I explained how we read Saint john the Chrysostom. Now Barnabas says I'm being isolated and that incontrovertible evidence has been put forth that St. John believed in vicarious atonement.
This is very frustrating. Richard says something about substitution, which is very very different than what Barnabas was saying, and suddenly I'm isolated.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
I give up ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Again!
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
The metropolitan does not say in lecture 2 that there is no separation between God the Father and God the Son. He says there is no separation between Christ and God the Father. Christ is Godman. Also, could you quote the exact words from lecture 1 that say "God the Son really experiences separation from God"?
OK, here are the exact words from lecture 1.
"He who is Himself true God from true God, who is always united with His Father, nevertheless experiences the loss of God, the Divine absence, the spiritual death of separation from God. Now we may ask ourselves how could this be. We do not understand. But what we know is that on the Cross there is no play-acting. All is real".
About half way through the recording. And in answer to the first question he is asked in the Q and A session, he points out that "Eli Eli lama sabacthani" is from the Psalms (22 v 1). He then adds the following comment.
"Some people say 'well Christ was just quoting the Psalms'. OK, well it is understandable that at this moment of great pain he would have recited Psalms which he had learned from an early childhood, but I cannot simply dismiss this passage as a quotation. Surely if he said this, then he meant it".
I was simply providing a synopsis of those statements. In them Christ is identified as true God from true God, always united with his Father, but nevertheless experiencing "the loss of God, the Divine absence, the spiritual death of separation from God." "No play acting". "If he said this, he meant it". Will that do?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
This is getting frustrating for me. As far as I can see, father Gregory and I explained how we read Saint john the Chrysostom. Now Barnabas says I'm being isolated and that incontrovertible evidence has been put forth that St. John believed in vicarious atonement.
This is very frustrating. Richard says something about substitution, which is very very different than what Barnabas was saying, and suddenly I'm isolated.
I give up
Again!
Not as frustrating as the fact that you just ignore posts that you can't answer. You didn't even try engage with what Ireneaus says about the cross. Even though I addressed it directly to you. It says what it says and I say it; it says what it says and you avoid it. Who is more likely to be right?
[ 18. March 2008, 16:02: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Where?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
OK, found it. I made many posts in reply to your posts, so I guess that's hardly me avoiding your quotation.
Your last post on the issue was this
You asked:
"andreas, is the cross salvation and life to you?"
Yes. But not because the Cross was a meritorious act from Christ. It was not. There is no merit on the Cross, and our salvation is not founded on merit, it is not given out of merit.
Like I said, we do not disagree because the one side accepts some verses while the other side rejects those verses. We disagree because we have a different understanding of what the verses mean in the first place.
Unless you guys are going to take that into account, I don't find any point in continuing this discussion.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Richard Collins
I'm pretty much in agreement with your last two posts. You'll probably recall (a cazillion posts ago) that I started from the position that some belief in substitutionary (vicarious) atonement was to found all over mainstream Christendom and I've also said that I have problems with the P in PSA.
Both your posts were very thought-provoking and I'm doing some "swotting" before coming back on them. But I thought there was really good stuff there.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
I'm leaving before I lose what's left of my sanity.
Richard says a substitution took place, we gave Christ our wounded nature, and He gave us incorruptibility in turn. Barnabas says he thought a substitutionary (vicarious) view of atonement exists in many Christians, and is happy to see Richard's post.
Oh well.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
As Myrrh and Richard Collins suggest, it was because Christ was divine.
But neither have explained why / how that makes a difference!
It's been a while, but the usual Orthodox teaching centres on the event being Passover, not Yom Kippur. All 'atonement' theories are basically irrelevant. Passover is freedom from slavery for no other reason than God offers it to us. If you want, as did the some as noted in Hebrews, take this as sacrifice for sins, by all means do so - as long as the rescue this brings doesn't delay you too much before encountering Christ's God who requires no such thing. The Victory of the Cross is the Passover Lamb, in the new relationship with God who became fully human for us to show the way.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Richard Collins
Following andreas' farewell comments, I think it best to flag the posts to which I was referring - I think I missed one in the countback.
This post and this one.
I really did not mean to provoke a flounce and I'm sorry it happened. Although I find andreas' approach to dialogue to be markedly different to my own, I do respect his intentions and his energy in discussions. I hope to see him back.
[ 18. March 2008, 18:03: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Just listened to the first two talks by +Kallistos. Excellent stuff. Didn't realise I was quite so (O)rthodox. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
[ 18. March 2008, 19:24: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Me neither. But apparently I'm not, so that's OK
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
A coherent gospel might not have appeared 'folly to the Greeks'.
C'mon Leo - have you forgotten where that quote comes from?
It is specifically 'Christ crucified' that is such folly ... not Christ crucified and risen ... in 1 Cor. 1 and 2 it is just the cross which is considered 'foolishness'.
Ummh. Where does CV fit into that?
It would be easy to make a case from 1 Corinthians that CV is an attempt to make the atonement coherent but actually PSA is being faithful to the charge of being a 'stumbling block'! (Applying the logic of your argument that is. )
So thanks, I'm thinking of getting a sig. of "PSA - as officially approved by Leo" ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I would not be too quick to separate the cross from the resurrection - they are all part of the paschal event and all part of CV.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Of course, we all live in these 'inbetween times' where we are (present continous) learning to put off Adam and put on Christ, to become what we are, so there will be both processes at work. We still live in a fallen world, with fallen human will so Sin will continue to be present and will thus lead to consequences (and need to be 'deterred' by consquences) - this is a simple fact of interim 'containment', however AT THE SAME TIME the Kingdom of God is advancing, humans are learning to put on Christ, to exchange their wills and natures for His and so, in many places, Sin and Consequences can be reversed and (sometimes) overcome.
Certainly the sacrifical metaphors work very strongly in terms of understanding the basis of this ontological, substitutionary exchange (the pure one dies to destroy our impurity so that we might receive his purity) but I'm just not sure where the specific notion of 'punishment' fits into this.
This is the problem I have with specifically PENAL SA.
I think it is your analysis of the "in between" time that I find most compelling in this post. I would like to explore that further with you in the contexts of human learning, and human and divine justice.
There appears to me to be a preliminary logjam in discussing that justice issue, since both Myrrh and andreas have given me to understand that for the Orthodox, God is not just. (Quoting a saying of St Isaac the Syrian).
I'm going to return to Kallistos Ware (The Orthodox Way) which I have just discovered is a Googlebook. Here is an extract quoting St Nicolas Cabasilas, a 13th century Byzantine Saint, who says, basically what I believe, what I have always believed. That God is, inter alia "more just than any Ruler". Before proceeding further, is this your view as well? For in considering the whole issue of penalty in relation to substitution, we need, as Numpty has implied, some acceptable standard for what is just. There is a big difference between saying "God is more just than any ruler" and "God is not just".
We may find that we actually are in agreement about our reservations re the P in PSA. I've already said I have such reservations myself.
Even if it is not immediately clear why I ask the question, it would help me to know your opinion on the subject.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
PS Richard
This part of your post
quote:
(the pure one dies to destroy our impurity so that we might receive his purity)
I have taken that to be a paraphrase (and I think an effective one) of 2 Cor 5 v 21. "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God". What Kallistos Ware calls the "expiatory" sacrifice (1 John 2 v 2). Sin is "wiped out" by Christ being made sin.
Again, I'm only checking carefully to ensure I understand you. If I do so, then you and I have have a very similar understanding about the nature of substitutionary atonement (rather than penal substitutionary atonement).
Also, if you want to use the term representative (rather than substitute), because of some of the verbal baggage associated with substitute that is fine with me. As in representative democracy, a representative is there "on our behalf". I'm following the advice of the excellent Jolly Jape in searching for language which does not light any of our blue touch papers.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Dear Barnabas
God is just. But what we mean by just is not what God's justice means. There is a difference in meaning, and when we apply our human notions of justice to God, then we err, and God is not the way we portray him to be.
I see some mentioning God's justice as they speak against some people. If that was right, if God's justice could be held against some, then woe unto us all, because it would be held against us all. In my view, those people miss the point entirely, and the speak about a justice that is foreign to God.
Are you a fool, Andrew? Saint Isaac might have said. Do you not realize your own stubbornness and darkness and wickedness? How dare you call upon God's justice, when you yourself are The Sinner! Are you really that blind? And where exactly did you see that justice you speak of being enforced? When the Lord of Glory gets crucified? When the rain blesses the fields of both the wicked and the righteous? When the sun blesses us all? When the poor suffer and the rich enjoy their riches? When the innocent perish and the wicked flourish? Where does this justice you have in mind exist, besides your poor imagination?
Why do you speak of justice, the Saint might have said, when Christ proclaims mercy? Why don't you repent and accept the mercy he offers freely? Why don't you show mercy towards all, as the Lord showed and taught us to do?
Saint Nikolas Kavasilas is very right in what he says. At one point, in his work on Life in Christ, he says "if there is any virtue and justice in God, this is it, to give to everybody abundantly the goods that are in him, and the communion of blessedness."
It is in this sense that God's justice is to be understood. And not in human terms.
I didn't get frustrated because I don't like us discussing. On the contrary, I am grateful for our discussions, and you guys should know that I like you very much. It's more like this: We had a whole thread where I explained how I see Christ's cry on the cross (well, one of his cries, the one chanting the psalm), and I explained that I accept it as very literal and real.
And yet, I read here that Barnabas in accordance to Mark and Matthew takes it at face value, while I apparently aren't! I was disappointed to see that we haven't made progress. I just want it to be acknowledged that I accept as authoritative the same Scriptures you do. It's not a matter of verses, but a matter of interpretation.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Barnabas, forgive my approach on our dialog. I will try to change that, but it's not easy. Offer forgiveness and accept my apologies.
I found the part where St. Kabasilas spoke, metropolitan Kallistos quoted! It was hard to find! First I searched for vasil* trying to find that reference to King, and then, when I could not find it, I searched for dika*, trying to find the reference to justice. Couldn't find that either! Strange.
Then it occurred to me to search for fil*, for friend. And bang! I found it!
The verse bishop Kallistos translates as "more just than any Ruler" reads: "akrivesteron the tyrannon" which means "more precise than any turrant", and I think that tyrant can be translated as Ruler, but akriveia is not the same word with justice, dikaiosuni. Anyway, let's say it's the same. What does the passage say in context?
It's from Life in Christ, the fourth part, where he speaks about the divine communion, paragraph ninety five.
He speaks about Christ being sent by God to serve... and that the greatest thing here is that this does not only refer to the present world, where Christ was shown with human infirmity, and did not come to judge the world, but showed the servant's characteristics and hid all the characteristics of the Lord, but also to the world to come, when he will come in power, and he will be shown in the father's glory. He will wear his belt, and he will drop down and he will serve them, he through whom kings rule and rulers rule the earth.
This way he has taken the true and pure kingship and rule. "more affectionate than any friend, more just than any ruler, more loving than any father, more a part of us than our own limbs, more necessary to us than our own heart". For Him, to rule in fear or payment, that's no true rule.
Perhaps if anyone owns an English translation of the book might help us here, providing a longer translation. I hope my post helps a little.
[ 19. March 2008, 01:16: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Thank you Johnny.
Why was it necessary for Jesus to be fully human and fully God and why is that 'Godness' tied up with his death?
The issue as I see it, is that the authority of man to rule the earth, given to him by God, was ceded to Satan in the fall.
God's 'ownership' of creation being thus compromised, this precluded his direct intervention apart from staring again which would have meant destroying man. Instead he chose the path of redemption.
However, this necessitated a judicial wresting back of what Satan had persusded Adam to give him.
Paul waxes eloqent on this point in his many proofs that Christ, the Messiah, had to walk free from sin and offer himself as a sacrifice. Since no man could be found free from sin's taint to do this, God, in his loving providence became man himself, became sin himself, and did the job. In Christ and him alone we find the authority of man to rule, recaptured.
I guess in the end that a test of theology is whether it is practical. Can one walk free from guilt, sin, and even disease on the basis of one's atonement model?
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
So I'm asking:
a) Why is this?
b) Why did the 'west' take the predominantly 'penal' line that it did?
c) Why are modern (conservative) evangelicals still so enamoured by a majority 'penal' explanation? Whence the Victor theme?
Okay, good questions. I'll think about them.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I would not be too quick to separate the cross from the resurrection - they are all part of the paschal event and all part of CV.
Now you're moving the goal posts.
I never said that we should separate the cross from the resurrection. My point was about trying to fit the different models together in a consistent and complementary manner.
You raised the 'folly' quote from Paul and I replied by drawing your attention to the fact that the 'folly' of which Paul spoke was specifically the death of Jesus and not the resurrection (in 1 Cor. 1).
i.e. It is essential that our atonement model has a 'death of Christ' component to it.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
However, this necessitated a judicial wresting back of what Satan had persusded Adam to give him.
Paul waxes eloqent on this point in his many proofs that Christ, the Messiah, had to walk free from sin and offer himself as a sacrifice. Since no man could be found free from sin's taint to do this, God, in his loving providence became man himself, became sin himself, and did the job. In Christ and him alone we find the authority of man to rule, recaptured.
Thanks - but you still haven't explained what it was about Jesus that meant that only he could do it, and only he could do it this particular way.
(Sorry about the triple post ... but it is hard to keep up with you guys down under.)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Good to see you back, andreas. I accept your apology. Please accept my apologies and regrets in return. I had no intention of provoking you at all. My comment re Matthew and Mark was related to your comment re Metropolitan Kallistos, that his observation re the cry of dereliction did not quote from the Fathers. I know you are sensitive about any implication that you do not accept the scriptures and that we are indeed talking about interpretation. I am happy to accept that on this issue Kallistos Ware's interpretation of the scriptures is different to yours - and, incidentally, the same as mine. I do find his explanation of his interpretation simple and compelling - but then I suppose I would, wouldn't I.
I guess this means that you will not be able to weigh in the balance Kallistos' paradoxical pair of truths, because you see no paradox. Ah well. Perhaps you can see why he (and I) do see a paradox? Maybe that will have to do for now?
On justice. Thank you for your digging re St Nicolas. I've got no chance of commenting on the relative merits of translations, and actually I am quite happy to accept the word precise. Looking at the statue outside the Old Bailey in the UK, the sword, the blindfold and the scales all speak in their different ways of the ideal that the administration of human law and rule be precise, objective and fair. That ideal is presented as right, aimed at by the best practitioners, given lip service by the cynical, but not reached even in the best of human judicial practice, as any lawyer will tell you.
The word "precise" does raise the interesting question of the "imprecision" of earthly rulers, which St Nicolas uses here as a contrast, since God is more precise than they are. What are the effects of their imprecise earthly rule?
We wrestle with words of course. I think your illustration of the intention of St Isaac to encourage mercy is very fine, but the real conundrum for me is in your last para here.
quote:
Why do you speak of justice, the Saint might have said, when Christ proclaims mercy? Why don't you repent and accept the mercy he offers freely? Why don't you show mercy towards all, as the Lord showed and taught us to do?
I find lots of examples in the parables and teachings where the Lord explained mercy precisely, but in juridical settings. Perhaps the most arresting of all of these is his strong criticism of Pharisaic practice here in Matt 23.. He harks back of course to Micah 6 v 8.
"Woe to you teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You give a tenth of your spices - mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law - justice, mercy and faith. You should have practised the latter without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!"
Act justly, love mercy, walk humbly. The humble, faithful walk seems to involve the practice of justice and mercy. This is what the Lord requires of us according to Micah, and the absence of all three in the Pharisees leads to this powerful rebuke by Jesus.
So I'm not sure what to make of the message that we should set aside all human notions of justice because they are imperfect. All human notions of mercy are also imperfect. As are all human notions of faithfulness. We need Christ in us.
Coming from the ontological argument of Christ-likeness - and Richard Collins excellent "overlap" argument - as Christ is formed in us do we not need to learn truly what it means to be just, merciful and faithful, according to the unchangeable nature of God's justice, mercy and faithfulness? Is that not a more precise way of looking at this question?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Sorry, mixed up my metaphors - I meant Richard's "in between" argument.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Barnabus,
Thanks for the vote of confidence! (one does rather wear one's heart on their sleeve posting here and it's nice to know I'm not spouting nonsense!).
Is God 'Just'? hmmmm.....
If I say 'no' then others hear me saying God is 'unjust', but if I say 'yes' then I'm defining God...God IS such-and-such which I would want to be cautious about because God IS, well,....God! Yahweh is who He is and all things take their definition FROM Him without Him being defined by anything (if you get my drift?).
I think this is why I come back to the essence and energies way of thinking. As far as WE understand it God requires Justice (in every sense of the word) but so often our fallen humanity struggles to understand what 'justice' truly is. This is why Christ is so important, because he revealed (reveals) in the fullest way just what justice, and mercy, and love looks like. So when he says, 'turn the cheek', 'pray for those who persecute you', 'love your enemies' THEN we are starting to get a glimpse of what divine justice and love looks like. However this perspective feels at odds with our own instinctive sense of justice and 'fairness', where we seek retribution for wrongs and punishment for those who hurt us. This should be enough to send alarm bells ringing that perhaps, rather than allowing our sense of justice to be projected onto God, we should we allowing Christ's revelation of 'justice' to define our own thinking.
But not everyone has 'ears to hear', and so Sinful humans still 'need' (for the safety of humanity) some sort of containment.
I guess my concern is that Christians OF ALL HUMANS should be more 'on message' with what divine justice looks like and should be seeking to transform the world according to THIS revelation. By articulating atonement in terms of Christ 'satisfying' diving wrath, one is actually using the 'language' of the world to explain God which is the very thing we should be trying to 'overcome'.
Hence PENAL substitutionary atonement is actually NOT transformational in the way that, I believe, Christ intended for his Church.
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Act justly, love mercy, walk humbly. The humble, faithful walk seems to involve the practice of justice and mercy. This is what the Lord requires of us according to Micah, and the absence of all three in the Pharisees leads to this powerful rebuke by Jesus.
So I'm not sure what to make of the message that we should set aside all human notions of justice because they are imperfect. All human notions of mercy are also imperfect. As are all human notions of faithfulness. We need Christ in us.
I agree with you here, Barnabas. But I guess that leads on to the question, "what is the nature of the justice towards which human notions of justice are pointing, and to what extent can they approach this divine justice?"
Firstly, I think that "justice" in a biblical sense, is a tent broad enough to encompass ideas other than the penal. I haven't done the word study, but my guess is that the overwhelming number of references to justice in the OT concern "doing righteously", that is, helping the poor, being hospitable to the alien, and so forth. This isn't so much a judicial view of justice, but rather a matter of identifying with the just nature of God. Like the parable of the workers in Matthew 20, it does seem that God is working to a paradigm which is significantly different to the "best" human model, so much so that we would be tempted to describe God's justice as "unjust" by worldly standards.
A further chunk of Old Testament references to justice could be described as "semi-penal". Here I am thinking about the vindication passages, where God is implored to rescue his peaple, and His judgement is called down upon their opressors. The reason I use the phrase "semi-penal" is because it is possible to view this as God executing judgement against the enemies of His people, but it is also possible to think of this as God executing judgement for His people. Is God's intent to punish "the nations" for their opposition to His people, or is the unpleasantness that happens to them the by-product, as it were, of the true intent of God to vindicate His chosen? Thus, in such references is justice necessarily penal? (Of course, there is then the question of whether the oppressing nations a type of the ungodly (ie, humans), or of the oppressing (spiritual) powers of sin and death.)
And, of course, we've got that verse Rom 3:25, which seems as close a definition of God's justice as we get, and furthermore sets a contrast between the human and the Divine point of view.
[ 19. March 2008, 10:17: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
As far as WE understand it God requires Justice (in every sense of the word) but so often our fallen humanity struggles to understand what 'justice' truly is. This is why Christ is so important, because he revealed (reveals) in the fullest way just what justice, and mercy, and love looks like. So when he says, 'turn the cheek', 'pray for those who persecute you', 'love your enemies' THEN we are starting to get a glimpse of what divine justice and love looks like. However this perspective feels at odds with our own instinctive sense of justice and 'fairness', where we seek retribution for wrongs and punishment for those who hurt us. This should be enough to send alarm bells ringing that perhaps, rather than allowing our sense of justice to be projected onto God, we should we allowing Christ's revelation of 'justice' to define our own thinking.
Cross posted with you, Richard. This is really excellent stuff. you've put in a few words what took me a few paragraphs, and with much more clarity! ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks. Richard
I enjoyed the "diving" wrath typo! My reflections on the human images of justice did cause me to wonder whether human justice was indeed in some senses blindfold. But of course it is all mixed up here. The blindfold on the statue of justice has, I am pretty sure, a biblical basis. As Peter says in Acts 10, following the request from Cornelius "God is no respecter of persons (or as later translations have it) God does not show favouritism". That blindfold is intended as a warning against partiality.
Some of this actually does connect with the effects of the Fall. When we see goodness in human justice, we may have a view distorted by vengeance, but at least some of us have an inkling that human vengeance is wrong. So I accept very much your reluctance to do too much definition in this area! It's just that I'm pretty sure that not all of our inklings point in the wrong direction.
It is fascinating bringing up children. I well remember a conversation between my two sons which went as follows.
Younger: You must share!
Older: Why? Anyhow I don't want to.
Younger: Dad! He's not being fair! I share with him and he wont share with me!
A nice mixture of good and bad inklings there alright! So I think a purification of our understanding and practice which leads to a clearer, cleaner, purer take on both justice and mercy, seems pretty necessary! In the "inbetween" as you put it, we have stuff to learn, stuff to discard, ways to be and things to do.
I think for example that much of my aversion to the P in PSA is actually instinctive. I read about God's wrath in scripture, but I read a lot of other stuff as well. And I've thought about it a lot.
I have this "inkling" that PSA distorts a truth, even if it does approach something true. About three hundred posts ago Father Gregory implied that much really depended on how we understand hilaskomai, hilasterion, hilasmos (translated as propitiation). I think that is right.
On the other hand, I have this "inkling" that SA does not distort a truth. It is not complete without CV alongside it. And all of these models falls into disrepair unless embraced by the truths of the Incarnation and the Resurrection. I like your word representative. Jesus represents us in atonement. Odd how that word seems to sit somehow in between "substitutes for" and "identifies with". I'm still figuring that one out.
And here I am, a Christian for well over thirty years now, still talking about inklings! You'd think I'd know better by now. But I really don't. I'm with Kallistos all the way in his "safety in numbers" argument. I do know which atonement models speak most clearly to me. Not sure I've got the right to foreclose on the truth of any of the others for anyone else. So long as they don't become idols.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
So when he says, 'turn the cheek', 'pray for those who persecute you', 'love your enemies' THEN we are starting to get a glimpse of what divine justice and love looks like. However this perspective feels at odds with our own instinctive sense of justice and 'fairness', where we seek retribution for wrongs and punishment for those who hurt us. This should be enough to send alarm bells ringing that perhaps, rather than allowing our sense of justice to be projected onto God, we should we allowing Christ's revelation of 'justice' to define our own thinking.
At a human level there is no doubt that you are on to something. However, I still can't quite fit verses like Romans 12: 19 into this schema. Paul's ethic seems to be one of 'turning the other cheek' because we leave ultimate justice to God. Now what that justice is in any given instance we cannot know - so it may be forgiveness for all we know - but the point is that it is his justice.
There is something about vindication here. When Jesus says the 'first will be last and the last will be first', then (in some way) he has to reward the 'losers' and penalise (or whatever the opposite of reward is!?) the 'winners'. If he doesn't then it makes his statement meaningless... is this making any sense? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
If the penal element is completely removed from the atonement I'm wondering where the 'vindication' of God's way of living is?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Thanks for that Barnabus, JJ and Johnny.
Johnny, you raise an interesting point. If I am hurt by someone and 'leave it to God' to vindicate me does this allow me to hope that they will be somehow 'punished' for their 'wrong' or should I actually beg God for their salvation and for him to show mercy? 'Forgive them for they know not what they do'?
I guess if it's a choice between my seeking vengence or 'leaving it to God' the latter is a better way. But the best way is surely to seek the restoration of the one causing me to pain?
This is truly a 'hard teaching' and I'm not saying that I follow it (heck, I'm fortunate if I get an inkling 1% of the time!), but I would suggest that God's 'vindication' is to work towards the restoration of the abuser, no?
However, I'm not an instinctive universalist. As much as I would have 'all men saved', I still believe in free will and the ability to choose to reject God which suggests that not all those who cause hurt (which includes me!) will allow God's restoration 'in'.
Again, I think pedagogy is important here. We all start at differing places and each have a personal journey to make, but IMHO finding the place where we allow our hurts and abuses to find their voice in 'forgive them for they know not what they do' is about the highest (and most pure) expression of the love, mercy and justice of God that I can imagine. Certainly it was the simple kindness of the earlier Christians even at the point of martyrdom which had such a transformational effect on the pagans.
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If the penal element is completely removed from the atonement I'm wondering where the 'vindication' of God's way of living is?
I don't see that the penal element inherently either reinforces or contradicts God's vindication. If it is God's forgiveness and humility being vindicated (ie, that these are the characteristics wherein lie the most forceful manifestations of God's power, and that in sharing these values lies the way to Godly living), then a penal element would not be present.
[ 19. March 2008, 11:10: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
I guess if it's a choice between my seeking vengence or 'leaving it to God' the latter is a better way. But the best way is surely to seek the restoration of the one causing me to pain?
Absolutely, I hope that my prayer would be your 'best way'.
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
However, I'm not an instinctive universalist. As much as I would have 'all men saved', I still believe in free will and the ability to choose to reject God which suggests that not all those who cause hurt (which includes me!) will allow God's restoration 'in'.
Precisely.
I'm not saying that our prayer should be, "let God sort them out later."
Surely our prayer is, "Lord, may they receive your mercy, forgiveness and restoration."
.
.
.
... but that still leaves what happens if they refuse to. ![[Frown]](frown.gif) I'm not talking about revenge but about the vindication of God.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
If it is God's forgiveness and humility being vindicated (ie, that these are the characteristics wherein lie the most forceful manifestations of God's power, and that in sharing these values lies the way to Godly living), then a penal element would not be present.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) But what about those who refuse to accept his forgiveness and humility?
Those who continue to live in pride and bitterness are constantly demonstrating that Jesus was absolutely wrong - the first will always be first.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
... but that still leaves what happens if they refuse to. I'm not talking about revenge but about the vindication of God.
But surely, for God to bring about the transformation about which you speak would be the vindication of God. If His desire is that all should experience that transformation, then anything less than that would be an imperfect vindication.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
... but that still leaves what happens if they refuse to. I'm not talking about revenge but about the vindication of God.
Then they experience God as pain and suffering.
Lord have mercy on us all ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
