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: PSA and Christian Identities (Page 12)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: PSA and Christian Identities
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Anyone who is evangelical and hyper-calvinist is schizophrenic. The two aren't actually compatible.

The drive to convert at all costs, is really anti the idea of the Predestination and the Perseverance of the Saints. Predestination says that your salvation is due to God alone and not a matter of your choice. Perseverance of the saints says that the way to guess at whether someone is converted is whether they persevere.

Jengie

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044

 - Posted      Profile for A.Pilgrim   Email A.Pilgrim   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Josephine, that post is magnificent. Wholly, totally, profoundly magnificent

You know what, I think I agree... [Big Grin]
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Josephine! Josephine! Josephine!

[Big Grin]

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Psyduck:if you take a "monolithic" view of Scripture, and if that means for you that Scripture is a repository of infallibly-true statements, then you are virtually bound to see hermeneutics as the task of clarifying scriptural statements, and translating them into suitable terms to provide articulations of dogmatic theology.
Psyduck, the first assumption in this quote is true IMV but the second is not.

You are assuming in it that a systematic theology is the object of our Bible study. For me this has never been the case. The object of Bible study is devotional.

However, I think you are right in pointing out that there are theological assumptions behind hermeneutical concepts.

I do not think that this, carries your argument that PSA is the totality of evangelical thought. I do assume that Christ took my sins upon himself. I do not believe this because of any systematic theology, but because pretty well all the apostolic writers state or imply it and it comforts me greatly to know that I no longer need bear the guilt of my sin.

[ 17. July 2010, 21:48: 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:
Josephine:If God could not tolerate the presence of anything imperfect then he could not have been incarnate
I think that this misunderstands the incarnation. IMV Christ became a man at the Father's direction SO THAT he could tolerate us. The one form he could take that allowed it was the incarnation. The point of it was to hide the glory in human flesh that was sinless.

--------------------
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
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hiding the glory in human flesh (veiled in flesh the Godhead see; hail th'incarnate Deity!) protects us from the full glory of God. At the Transfiguration, the disciples saw our Lord as he really was, with the fully Glory not being veiled.

The flesh of the human man protected us from God, so to speak. I can't see how it protected God from us. God was still rubbing elbows with sin. So much so that it killed him. The idea that God cannot stand to be in the presence of sin falls flat on the fact of the incarnation. God was in the presence of sin. In fact he seemed to seek it out -- eating with tax collectors and prostitutes and what-not. And, as I said, the full presence of sin crucified Him.

[ 18. July 2010, 01:37: Message edited by: mousethief ]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 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 
Hey Psyduck, have a great holiday.

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Johnny S.:
quote:
All I'm trying to do is explain why some Christians find it a helpful concept. I don't see how this means that it has to explain everything. Seriously, how do make that connection from what I've said?
OK - I didn't catch your drift originally. I now assume that what you mean here:

quote:
And once that is conceded I think it is only fair to concede that the kind of rationalisation (between apparently conflicting statements in Scripture) that goes on in PSA is a perfectly normal hermeneutical process.

is that if, as has been thrown up in this thread, I John holds together the assertions that "God is love" and "God is light" he is holding together prima facie contradictories, which stand in need of some sort of rationalization, yes?

No, I don't think I would say there contradictory, but rather that they are different analogies for his nature and so when talking about God we need to allow both to speak equally without letting one swallow up the other.

To say, for example, that 'God is love' sums up God and then applying that to atonement models seems just the same as those who start with the model of PSA and read scripture in the light of it.

Of course God is love, but he is other things too and a proper theology of God will listen to all aspects of his character.

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
And you are saying that, taking Scripture as a whole, PSA is no more than an attempt to provide such a rationalization between the statements that God is love, and that God punishes sin. Yes? (And please do correct me if I'm wrong.)

Yes, pretty much.


quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
quote:
For example he states that everyone is a sinner in chapter 1 - indeed we are liars if we claim otherwise (v 8). Then in chapter 3 he claims that no-one who is born of God will continue to sin (v 9).I don't think it is too much to attempt a rationalisation of apparent contradictions within one letter.
Is it absolutely clear that this is a contradiction? I'd see it more as an aporia - the difficult, thought-provoking juxtaposition of apparently contradictory assertions, which, in classical rhetoric is meant to produce a variety of effects, including dissatisfaction with one's present position, a questioning of one's thinking, and even entertainment of the possibility that there is something here that can't be resolved.
You're hiding behind the word aporia here. Maybe John is engaging in this kind of rhetorical device (I think you're probably right) but it is still apparently contradictory and therefore there must be some level of interpretation going on here. I don't see how what you've said makes any qualitative difference to my point.

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
quote:
(1) No one born of God commits sin; for God's nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God. (2) If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (3) If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Isn't seeking to "resolve" this contradiction to miss what I John is saying?

But OK - let's call it a contradiction - and note that I John doesn't seem to feel the need to address it, let alone resolve it. If we do note that, that's exegesis.

Of course that's exegesis. Unless you are the most rabid fundamentalist that ever existed all reading of scripture involves interpretation. There is no 'plain meaning of the text' in that absolute sense.

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
However this doesn't follow.
quote:
And once that is conceded I think it is only fair to concede that the kind of rationalisation (between God forgives and God punishes sin) that goes on in PSA is a perfectly normal hermeneutical process.
It's not. It's not a hermeneutical process, it's a dogmatic theological process. ISTM it's characteristic of conservative evangelical theology to fuse hermeneutics and the articulation of "Scriptural" (and those aren't meant as "scare-quotes" - they mark something that's openly in dispute here) dogmatic theology. In a sense, if you take a "monolithic" view of Scripture, and if that means for you that Scripture is a repository of infallibly-true statements, then you are virtually bound to see hermeneutics as the task of clarifying scriptural statements, and translating them into suitable terms to provide articulations of dogmatic theology.
In other words, they have to fit together. They can't be poetic articulations of truth - or at least, if they are, they have to be capable of translation out of their poetic form into a truth that is unitary, or monolithic. And aporia is something that such an approach can't countenance.

Actually that is very helpful in clarifying your position. I can see your problem with my position in assuming that the bible has one message. However, you've got your argument back to front here. Take on the 'one voice of scripture' if you want but that is not the fault of PSA. Any evangelical doctrine is based on this assumption, PSA is nothing special.

But on that note I don't think it is fair to caricature evilgelicals like that. I'm happy to allow for scripture to be blurry around the edges and to leave some of these apparent contradictions unanswered.

Indeed you have raised another one of the large intellectual flaws of liberal theology. While I can appreciate aspects of apophatic theology there is something different going on here. This is not talking about what God is not like, it is simply leaving apparent contradictions unanswered.

In reality everyone[/i[ engages in rationalisation. Even the statement 'God is love' can be one. It is assuming that this statement sums up God and it assumes that other factors are to be subsumed to it.

Can you really imagine what theology would be like if we gave up [i]altogether
on the 'one voice of the bible' or 'one voice of Christianity'? (NB I'm not discounting your point about aporia here, but I am taking it to its logical conclusion.) Then it would be impossible to speak of God or Christ at all? We could only answer in terms of what Mark's Jesus said or what the early church fathers said. (Of course even then we are admitting to some rationalisation within Mark etc.)

I repeat, I agree that theology is messy and sometimes we are left with surds. However, I've never met a Christian or a theologian who both aspires to your position and consistently applies it. Everybody engages in this process to some degree, it is just that evilgelicals are honest about it.


quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
quote:
Speaking of "a dominant model to the virtual exclusion of anything else" (*cough* psyduck *cough*) doesn't anybody notice that John similarly defines God as light in the very same letter - 1 John 1: 5. The context being one of holiness such that he cannot tolerate sin.
Now sorry, but that really is eisegesis! Here's the verse:
quote:
This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him is no darkness at all.
But what follows is about our choice to walk in the light or in the darkness:
quote:
If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth; but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
There's absolutely nothing there or elsewhere in I John to substantiate your statement that God "cannot tolerate sin." It's just not what I John is about. It's about how sin is dealt with in us. Sin is never God's problem, always ours.

I missed out a few steps in my argument, I admit, but I still stand by my basic premise.

Remember all I was doing was demonstrating that the metaphor of 'God is light' brings a very different nuance to the character of God as does 'God is light'.

I can argue with you about how sin fits into this if you want, but the main point is that 'God is love' is an inclusive metaphor, whereas 'God is light' is an exclusive metaphor. I don't see how you can dispute that from the way John handles either metaphor.

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
It's entirely consistent with John's Gospel:
quote:
In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light. The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world.

quote:
(John 12) And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. And he who sees me sees him who sent me. I have come as light into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. If any one hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day.
I submit that if you read either John or I John closely, there is nothing to justify straightforwardly summarizing any part of it as "God cannot tolerate sin". You have to import that notion from outside.

So I really have to ask: where did God "not being able to tolerate sin" come from in your exegesis?

As I said above this is a red-herring. However, you interpret 'God is light' you come up with something different to 'God is love'.

In answer to your question, though, verse 7 of chapter 1 makes the link between 'walking in darkness' and 'sin'. The analogy is, I think, fairly clear, John is saying - either you walk with God in the light or you walk in the darkness and therefore you are not with God. Elsewhere John says (in chapters 2 and 3) that following Jesus means being 'in him' (= in God). You can quibble over the exact connotations of 'tolerate' but John's image is pretty clear here - you can't have light with darkness.

Jesus, on the other hand, put it much more strongly in John's gospel. I've got to go now (RL) but I'm happy to come back to John's gospel if you want me to.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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:
Mousethief:I can't see how it protected God from us. God was still rubbing elbows with sin. So much so that it killed him.
Neither can I but doesn't that reinforce the point of the incarnation?..essentially we cannot know how God manages stuff. We do know from scripture that he is holy and we aren't and that's a problem.

John's prologue is about as far as we can get in it.. "the word was God..and the word became flesh and tabernacled with us." the only conclusion is that somehow, being born as a man God was able to separate his glory from humanity by means of humanity, for a time.

--------------------
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
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598

 - Posted      Profile for sanityman   Email sanityman   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Josephine, what a great post in reply to my rather hurried and crass bit of Google proof-texting! I hope my summary wasn't a strawman: I was trying to do the position justice, although I'm much more in sympathy with what you said. Thanks for your time and effort.

Johnny S, I'm interested in what you're saying about 1 John. I've always thought it was a bit of a janus-faced book: very comforting verses mixed with stuff that hard and/or frightening. I felt you captured the dichotomy well in your posts to Psyduck.

I'm a bit confused as to how the atonement (/whatever theory) deals with the problem you bring up, though. the author clearly says that no-one born of God continues to sin. Whatever we think about the atonement's efficacy in covering our sin, it cannot be denied that we all continue to sin. The logical implication is that none of us are born of God. It seems that the aporia mentioned by Psyduck doesn't just go away, even if one accepts PSA?

- Chris.

--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot

Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

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

I'm a bit confused as to how the atonement (/whatever theory) deals with the problem you bring up, though. the author clearly says that no-one born of God continues to sin. Whatever we think about the atonement's efficacy in covering our sin, it cannot be denied that we all continue to sin. The logical implication is that none of us are born of God. It seems that the aporia mentioned by Psyduck doesn't just go away, even if one accepts PSA?

I quite agree. Aporia don't just go away. Remember you first brought up 1 John. All I was doing was trying to show that, even in this one letter, there were 'competing voices' that need to be listened to.

I certainly wouldn't try to answer that tension by appealing to PSA. I think you misunderstood why I pointed out those verses. I don't think they have anything to do with PSA. I was merely saying that seeking to rationalise apparent contradictions is something we do all the time and so for PSA to try do so is not per se a terribly abnormal thing to do. This was about methodology not necessarily about seeing PSA in certain proof-texts.

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 Psyduck:
where did God "not being able to tolerate sin" come from in your exegesis?

Actually, reflecting upon the incarnation forces me to agree with MT ...

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The idea that God cannot stand to be in the presence of sin falls flat on the fact of the incarnation. God was in the presence of sin. In fact he seemed to seek it out -- eating with tax collectors and prostitutes and what-not. And, as I said, the full presence of sin crucified Him.

I think you're right. 'God not being able to tolerate sin' is evo-speak and it is not biblical. If that is what Psyduck meant by importing PSA that I think he has a grain of truth here.

MT and Josephine make a good point by stressing the incarnation - it does not make sense to say that God cannot tolerate sin.

However, I do think the prologue to John's gospel does bring out the issues I'm talking about. So, I agree that phraseology is wrong, but I'm not letting go of the concept.

At the risk of turning this into a keryg thread there is no doubt that John expected his readers to pick up on a OT background to John 1: 1-14.

I'd like to concentrate on the background of the tabernacle / tent of meeting in particular in verse 14 - "The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. We have seen his glory."

Immediately you think tabernacle and you think of God's OT glory. The amazing, nay mind-blowing, point John is making is that Jesus is the same glorious revelation!?

Of course it should also make the reader think - in the OT there was a mixed message in the tabernacle (God was saying come, but don't come ... i.e. the tabernacle was in the middle of the camp, surrounded by God's people, but there were all these rules stopping people from entering.) In particular sacrifice was necessary.

So when you read John 1 you're thinking, "How come the disciples didn't get smote, like in the OT?" Sin needed to be dealt with for the Israelites to meet with a holy God. And then you read, John 1: 29, "The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"

Considering that John has spent so much time setting up JtB in the prologue as the 'witness to the light' it cannot be a coincidence that JtB says this in chapter 1.

So I'll rephrase what I said earlier. It is not that God cannot tolerate sin. But I think it is true to say that God cannot dwell with mankind without sin being dealt with by sacrifice. I do think that is the message of John (both the gospel and 1 John.)

Of course that is just sacrifice and doesn't necessarily prove PSA but (for the moment) I'm just clarifying what I mean by 'God cannot dwell with mankind without sin being dealt with by sacrifice'.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598

 - Posted      Profile for sanityman   Email sanityman   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Johnny S, you're quite right, the 1 John tangent is my fault, and has turned into a bit of a derail. My apologies, and thanks for discussing it. Perhaps I ought to call myself to Kerg! Anyway, you're right, I had misunderstood your point.
quote:
I think you're right. 'God not being able to tolerate sin' is evo-speak and it is not biblical. If that is what Psyduck meant by importing PSA that I think he has a grain of truth here.

MT and Josephine make a good point by stressing the incarnation - it does not make sense to say that God cannot tolerate sin.

[Overused] I aspire to this level of grace and non-partisanship. I'm also very happy you think that what MT/Josephine wrote is evangelical-compatible, as I could always do with things to agree on with my evo friends! This has been really insightful and helpful for me; thanks to all for keeping the discussion at this level [Cool] .

- Chris.

--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot

Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

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

At the risk of turning this into a keryg thread there is no doubt that John expected his readers to pick up on a OT background to John 1: 1-14.

I'd like to concentrate on the background of the tabernacle / tent of meeting in particular in verse 14 - "The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. We have seen his glory."

Immediately you think tabernacle and you think of God's OT glory. The amazing, nay mind-blowing, point John is making is that Jesus is the same glorious revelation!?

Of course it should also make the reader think - in the OT there was a mixed message in the tabernacle (God was saying come, but don't come ... i.e. the tabernacle was in the middle of the camp, surrounded by God's people, but there were all these rules stopping people from entering.) In particular sacrifice was necessary.

So when you read John 1 you're thinking, "How come the disciples didn't get smote, like in the OT?" Sin needed to be dealt with for the Israelites to meet with a holy God. And then you read, John 1: 29, "The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"

Considering that John has spent so much time setting up JtB in the prologue as the 'witness to the light' it cannot be a coincidence that JtB says this in chapter 1.

So I'll rephrase what I said earlier. It is not that God cannot tolerate sin. But I think it is true to say that God cannot dwell with mankind without sin being dealt with by sacrifice. I do think that is the message of John (both the gospel and 1 John.)

Of course that is just sacrifice and doesn't necessarily prove PSA but (for the moment) I'm just clarifying what I mean by 'God cannot dwell with mankind without sin being dealt with by sacrifice'.

This makes a lot of assumptions though. Were the exclusive rules God-made or man-made? I would tend to say 'man-made' as we are very good at making up these kinds of exclusive rules.

God's glory is and always was here with us imo. It's recognising it that we struggle to do.

I don't think God ever 'withdraws' from the world. S/he is here, now, available, loving and guiding 24/7.

The 'Here and not here' of the OT is typical of human emotion and felt experience - but not any actual withdrawing from us by God imo.

[ 18. July 2010, 14:41: Message edited by: Boogie ]

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
So I'll rephrase what I said earlier. It is not that God cannot tolerate sin. But I think it is true to say that God cannot dwell with mankind without sin being dealt with by sacrifice.

I think, perhaps, if you turned it around, it would be more accurate. I think it's fair to say that man cannot dwell with God without sin being dealt with by sacrifice.

And he wants to dwell with us, and to have us dwell with him. That's the whole point of the Incarnation; it's why the Word of God would have taken on human flesh even if Adam had never had a bite of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

After Adam ate the fruit, God still came to be with him. And didn't just come, but sought him out, and called for him. But what did Adam do? He hid! The problem isn't on God's side; it's not that God can't or won't come to us or dwell with us. The problem is on our side. When we know our sin, we won't dwell with him.

Christ's death puts that all right. When we die with him in baptism, when our death is joined to his, then the sin and guilt and shame that would keep us away from God dies, too. When we're raised up out of the water and our lives are joined to his resurrection, then sin can never be part of us in the same way again. As a result, we can come into God's presence with joy instead of hiding from him in terror and shame.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
The problem is on our side. When we know our sin, we won't dwell with him.

That statement is only possible with a very selective reading of the OT.

Adam & Eve - why did God cast them out of the garden then?

Tabernacle - why was sacrifice required when the people (Priests) wanted to come in?

10C - why does the text of Exodus 19 have God telling Moses to warn the people about approaching God?

Uzzah - what about Eutychus' original passage? The whole point of the story seems to be a warning against thoughtless approaching God - i.e. again that it is not an easy thing to be in God's presence.

ISTM the entire OT has the problem on both sides.

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 Boogie:
This makes a lot of assumptions though. Were the exclusive rules God-made or man-made?

Yes, lots of assumptions. That always cuts both ways.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Adam & Eve - why did God cast them out of the garden then? [/QB]

Doesn't God say why he cast them out of the garden?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
The problem is on our side. When we know our sin, we won't dwell with him.

That statement is only possible with a very selective reading of the OT.

Adam & Eve - why did God cast them out of the garden then?

Tabernacle - why was sacrifice required when the people (Priests) wanted to come in?

10C - why does the text of Exodus 19 have God telling Moses to warn the people about approaching God?

Uzzah - what about Eutychus' original passage? The whole point of the story seems to be a warning against thoughtless approaching God - i.e. again that it is not an easy thing to be in God's presence.

ISTM the entire OT has the problem on both sides.

No, the problem is entirely on our side.

God sent Adam and Eve out of the Garden to protect them. If they had stayed, they might eat of the tree of life and so live forever in their broken state.

Likewise, the priests and the people were warned not to approach the mountain or enter the Holy of Holies to protect them. You'll notice in Scriptures that people fall on their faces in terror at the presence of an angel. What would happen to them in the presence of God himself? Being around holiness, when you're not holy, is terrifying and painful. God doesn't want to cause us terror and pain, so he warns us off.

The case of Uzzah is a difficult one. One of the early fathers (can't remember which one now) pointed out that David never asked God why he had been angry at Uzzah, he just became afraid that if God would do that to Uzzah, he might do it to him, too. But the implication is that we don't really know the whole story; we don't know why God struck down Uzzah for touching the ark. Some of the fathers suggested that it was for over-reaching. He was called to walk in front of the ark. He wasn't called to steady it when it fell. Maybe there was someone else called to do that.

Whatever the reason was that God struck down Uzzah, I don't think you can use that one story to prove that God wants to keep us away from him, when the clear message of everything else God has ever said and done is that he wants to be with us, and has done everything he can to make that possible for us.

Just keep thinking about the Incarnation. That's the central fact of God's relationship to us and to all of Creation. Everything in the Bible, everything in Tradition, everything in our relationship with God has to be viewed in the light of the Incarnation. That's the key.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
God sent Adam and Eve out of the Garden to protect them. If they had stayed, they might eat of the tree of life and so live forever in their broken state.

Likewise, the priests and the people were warned not to approach the mountain or enter the Holy of Holies to protect them. You'll notice in Scriptures that people fall on their faces in terror at the presence of an angel. What would happen to them in the presence of God himself? Being around holiness, when you're not holy, is terrifying and painful. God doesn't want to cause us terror and pain, so he warns us off.

We seem to be missing each other here. I agree that God did all this for their protection.

However, I think you are playing with words when you say "Being around holiness, when you're not holy, is terrifying and painful. God doesn't want to cause us terror and pain, so he warns us off."

God is holy. It is his very character. Describing his holiness in this impersonal way makes it sound as if God's holiness is outside of his control (... rather like flatulence? [Big Grin] )

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Where's the evidence for this understanding of "punishment" at the cross, either in Scripture or in the PSA literature?

Okay. Just so that you've got something to read while you recover from your op... although we've gone over this at some length on the Cv and more recently other PSA thread.
Thanks. There were some complications and in the time taken to sort those out, this thread has grown by two pages! I'm going to be away for a while now and hopefully convalescing. If I gather the strength to jump in again I will, but I'm glad to note in the mean time that Uzzah is still on the agenda [Biased]

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just to double back on a point. What is just about one person taking the punishment for someone else? If the punishment is meant to be instructive or protective then the substitute will not learn and doesn't need to learn that lesson - therefore it's pointless. And doesn't help. If the punishment is for vengeance (itself unjust) then clearly the punisher doesn't care who suffers the vengeance, only that they get their catharsis. This isn't justice, it's a temper tantrum. Therefore if substitutionary atonement worked then the punishment was never just in the first place. The one exception is where the punishment isn't a punishment, it's damages. And God's so concerned about the damages inflicted by the comparatively powerless that he doesn't care who fixes his window as long as it's fixed. This makes Jesus the side of God that got so fed up of punitive and arbitrary fines leading to starvation and debt-slavery that he paid out of his own pocket, taking away God's excuse to gratuitously torture for something that was, to him, trivial. (Or God is much, much less powerful than even the Liberal God.)

If the punishment is one where one person can legitimately suffer in someone else's place then it is inherently unjust.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
God is holy. It is his very character. Describing his holiness in this impersonal way makes it sound as if God's holiness is outside of his control (... rather like flatulence? [Big Grin] )

That's ironic because when you say God's justice has to be propitiated before God can love us, it makes God's justice sound outside of his control.

The cutesy aside about flatulence comes across as passive aggressive, by the way.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Anyone who is evangelical and hyper-calvinist is schizophrenic. The two aren't actually compatible.

Anyone who is evangelical and a universalist is schizophrenic. The two aren't actually compatible.

So?

--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]

Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[/qb]

That's ironic because when you say God's justice has to be propitiated before God can love us, it makes God's justice sound outside of his control.
[/QB][/QUOTE]

I don't see why his love has anything to do with it. That love, at least, we agree is beyond question. The issue for me is how the two are maintained in tension. As was stated above, the aphoria (nice word) or paradox does not go away.

I actually thinK C S Lewis had it right. The thing itself is what we must accept, viz that God in Christ has reconciled the world to himself. Our models of how it works are not really that important.

--------------------
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
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Anyone who is evangelical and hyper-calvinist is schizophrenic. The two aren't actually compatible.

Anyone who is evangelical and a universalist is schizophrenic. The two aren't actually compatible.

So?

Indeed they are - very much so if you read Jn 12:32m Mt. 19:28, 1 Cor 15:22, 1 Jn 2:2 and The Evangelical Universalist by G. MacDonald
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's ironic because when you say God's justice has to be propitiated before God can love us, it makes God's justice sound outside of his control.

I don't see why his love has anything to do with it. That love, at least, we agree is beyond question.
Because He can't simply forgive us, the justice comes first. Like the justice is something he can't help -- he wants to forgive us, but the impersonal justice has to be served first.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So Almighty God is limited by the Law?

Not much of a God, is he?

Even human beings are capable of forgiving without seeking repentance first.

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 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 Justinian:
What is just about one person taking the punishment for someone else?

This was gone over at great length on the CV thread. It assumes an individualistic view of salvation.

However, the NT has a corporate view. In Christ we receive the punishment we deserve. That is why, according to PSA (and despite some protestations on this thread), it is absolutely essential that Jesus is fully human.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

The one exception is where the punishment isn't a punishment, it's damages.

Or maybe some kind of vindication?

A close member of my family is still stuck in a lengthy legal case. Although the defendant (who harmed them in someway) has been found guilty they are refusing to pay up. (There are all sorts of legal loopholes that he can exploit in this situation to drag this out.) It's not about the money. It is about justice being done and being seen to be done. I can feel for them - the defendant has done some terrible things and is refusing to face up to his actions. Even after a unanimous verdict against him.

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 mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
God is holy. It is his very character. Describing his holiness in this impersonal way makes it sound as if God's holiness is outside of his control (... rather like flatulence? [Big Grin] )

That's ironic because when you say God's justice has to be propitiated before God can love us, it makes God's justice sound outside of his control.
Actually that is precisely my point. It's his love, his justice and his holiness.

God is not some popularist politician who refuses to own up to and stand behind who he is and what his policies are.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

The cutesy aside about flatulence comes across as passive aggressive, by the way.

Well it certainly wasn't meant as such. It was a just joke. I thought that the Orthodox were supposed to enjoy a joke? I also thought it was supposed to be the evilgelicals that were so straight-laced that they disapproved of such frivolity when discussing God?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

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

The cutesy aside about flatulence comes across as passive aggressive, by the way.

Well it certainly wasn't meant as such. It was a just joke. I thought that the Orthodox were supposed to enjoy a joke? I also thought it was supposed to be the evilgelicals that were so straight-laced that they disapproved of such frivolity when discussing God?
I didn't say it wasn't funny, nor did I say it was inappropriate to have fun when discussing God (this would be a strange thing for the inventor of online Orthodox humour to say).

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's ironic because when you say God's justice has to be propitiated before God can love us, it makes God's justice sound outside of his control.

I don't see why his love has anything to do with it. That love, at least, we agree is beyond question.
Because He can't simply forgive us, the justice comes first. Like the justice is something he can't help -- he wants to forgive us, but the impersonal justice has to be served first.
Now you seem to be equating love and forgiveness. Love is God's unchanging attitude. forgiveness though is surely conditional upon repentance. Otherwise wouldn't you have to say that God has actually stopped loving the lost which contradicts John 3:16.

--------------------
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
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But not just conditional on repentance (which I think is arguable but leave that for the moment), but on justice being fulfilled. God wants to forgive us but his justice kept getting in the way, until he killed Jesus.

But as has been noted above, killing one person in place of another isn't terribly just. There is nowhere in human jurisprudence where we'd say that was just. We must be redefining "just" to mean "what God does" -- which is as meaningless as redefining love as "what God does".

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 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 mousethief:
But not just conditional on repentance (which I think is arguable but leave that for the moment), but on justice being fulfilled.

Getting back to 1 John for a moment I was struck by 1 John 1: 9 recently:
quote:
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
It seems a very odd turn of phrase. Why does John say that, if we confess our sins, God forgives us out of his faithfulness and his justice / righteousness?

According to your reading it would be more natural to say that out of his grace or his mercy he forgives those who confess their sins. And, again, I would say that is still true (his grace and his mercy) but that John deliberately seems to bring justice / righteousness into the discussion at this point.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But not just conditional on repentance (which I think is arguable but leave that for the moment), but on justice being fulfilled.

Getting back to 1 John for a moment I was struck by 1 John 1: 9 recently:
quote:
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
It seems a very odd turn of phrase. Why does John say that, if we confess our sins, God forgives us out of his faithfulness and his justice / righteousness?

According to your reading it would be more natural to say that out of his grace or his mercy he forgives those who confess their sins. And, again, I would say that is still true (his grace and his mercy) but that John deliberately seems to bring justice / righteousness into the discussion at this point.

You're right, this does argue against PSA. Thank you.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 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 mousethief:
You're right, this does argue against PSA. Thank you.

Come on MT, you can't one minute complain that a weak joke I make is passive-aggressive and then reply like this the next.

If this argues against PSA then explain how. I obviously don't think it does.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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:
Mousethief" he (God) killed Jesus.
I don't think he did. I don't think a PSA reading thinks he did either.

Jesus was actually not killed IMV; he chose precisely when he would give up his spirit

The guilt of the crucifixion was on both Roman and Jew but I don't think he died by crucifixion. It was more likely blood loss. He was dead when they pierced his side.

Submitting to the process was Jesus' choice. Remember the legions of angelic help he turned down?

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

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
What is just about one person taking the punishment for someone else?

This was gone over at great length on the CV thread. It assumes an individualistic view of salvation.

However, the NT has a corporate view. In Christ we receive the punishment we deserve. That is why, according to PSA (and despite some protestations on this thread), it is absolutely essential that Jesus is fully human.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

The one exception is where the punishment isn't a punishment, it's damages.

Or maybe some kind of vindication?

A close member of my family is still stuck in a lengthy legal case. Although the defendant (who harmed them in someway) has been found guilty they are refusing to pay up. (There are all sorts of legal loopholes that he can exploit in this situation to drag this out.) It's not about the money. It is about justice being done and being seen to be done. I can feel for them - the defendant has done some terrible things and is refusing to face up to his actions. Even after a unanimous verdict against him.

Actually, the point you make has some strength, but it is not a point in favour of a penal understanding. I actually don't disagree that sin was judged on the cross (or, to put it more accurately from my perspective, the cross announces God's judgement on sin). It is the nature of that judgement which is at issue. Is sin overcome by being punished, or by being forgiven? PSAers say the former, those favouring other models would probably say the latter. I guess it boils down to whether or not you believe punishment actually acheives anything at all, other than making the punisher feel better/superior/pick your own attitude. To me, it seems an admission of failure, since punishment (as opposed to discipline) is entirely non-redemptive, and totally unhelpful to the wounded party.

Thus, in summary, I think that the paschal event demonstrates in the most stark way possible, that evil can never overcome good, that God is able to redeem every situation. It is a vindication of the power of good to overcome evil. It is the true judgement of God on sin.

BTW, my recollection of the CV thread is that it was those who favoured a PSA understanding (in fairness, primarily Jamat, rather than yourself) who felt that CV was flawed precisely because it was felt to be to impersonal, that it didn't deal so explicitly with my sin. This seems at odds with your first paragraph, but perhaps I have misunderstood you.

--------------------
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      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
originally posted by Jamat

Now you seem to be equating love and forgiveness. Love is God's unchanging attitude. forgiveness though is surely conditional upon repentance. Otherwise wouldn't you have to say that God has actually stopped loving the lost which contradicts John 3:16.

Sorry, Jamat, could you unpack this a little. I know that you don't accept (as I do) that repentance is a response to forgiveness rather than the grounds of it, but even within that framework, I'm not sure I get the point that you were making.

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

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

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Actually, the point you make has some strength, but it is not a point in favour of a penal understanding. I actually don't disagree that sin was judged on the cross (or, to put it more accurately from my perspective, the cross announces God's judgement on sin). It is the nature of that judgement which is at issue. Is sin overcome by being punished, or by being forgiven?

Actually I think it does favour a penal understanding. The reason I used the court case is that here, even though the defendant has been found guilty, he is not admitting guilt nor admitting liability.

How much more when there is no punishment at all?

When someone apologises to us today for some trivial inconvenience (e.g. bumping into us in the street) the normal repsonse is - "it doesn't matter" ("no worries" in Australia) - which I think is telling. We are forgiving them because, we say, it cost us nothing to do so. However, in more serious cases it does matter. In fact the severity of the punishment tells us something about the seriousness of the crime. By using a penal metaphor as part of the atonement I think we are saying something about how much it cost God to forgive us. Or to put it the other way round, if God 'just forgives' everything then our sin is equally not very serious as opposed to PSA where our sin is equally terribly serious. Does that make sense?

Now I realise that I'm stretching the definition of the word 'punishment' here but then it is a 'model' and therefore feel at liberty to do so.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
BTW, my recollection of the CV thread is that it was those who favoured a PSA understanding (in fairness, primarily Jamat, rather than yourself) who felt that CV was flawed precisely because it was felt to be to impersonal, that it didn't deal so explicitly with my sin. This seems at odds with your first paragraph, but perhaps I have misunderstood you.

I think we are using personal in two different ways here. I do think CV does has the danger of lessening a sense of personal responsibility for sin (and in that sense impersonal) but my comments about corporate identity in Christ was more to do with individualism than being personal.

I wouldn't really put it like this but to stretch the analogy the PSA model involves debt and so Christ pays the sum debt for the whole humanity but that includes, exactly, my contribution to it.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sin is overcome by forgiveness, as the cycle of retribution is then broken.

Jesus forgave sin - well before going to the cross. So the cross wasn't necessary for sin to be overcome.

The cross demonstrated the lengths He would go to not to give to, or relatiate against, His enemies. Which was consistent with His life and teaching.

IMO

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That should read -

The cross demonstrated the lengths He would go to not to give in to, or relatiate against, His enemies. Which was consistent with His life and teaching.

of course [Smile]

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Boogie [Overused]

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
originally posted by JohnnyS
Actually I think it does favour a penal understanding. The reason I used the court case is that here, even though the defendant has been found guilty, he is not admitting guilt nor admitting liability.

How much more when there is no punishment at all?

When someone apologises to us today for some trivial inconvenience (e.g. bumping into us in the street) the normal repsonse is - "it doesn't matter" ("no worries" in Australia) - which I think is telling. We are forgiving them because, we say, it cost us nothing to do so. However, in more serious cases it does matter. In fact the severity of the punishment tells us something about the seriousness of the crime. By using a penal metaphor as part of the atonement I think we are saying something about how much it cost God to forgive us. Or to put it the other way round, if God 'just forgives' everything then our sin is equally not very serious as opposed to PSA where our sin is equally terribly serious. Does that make sense?

Now I realise that I'm stretching the definition of the word 'punishment' here but then it is a 'model' and therefore feel at liberty to do so.


There's that problem with the scare-quoted "just forgive" shorthand again. The point is, surely, that the seriousness or otherwise of an offence is not measured by whether it can be met with forgiveness, but rather by the cost of that forgiveness to the forgiver. Nobody is arguing (at least, I haven;t met anyone here arguing) that forgiveness is an easy or cost-free option. On the contrary, with regard to the cross, the very enormity of the offence is what makes the forgiveness both so incomprehensibly generous (from our point of view) and so absolutely essential (from God's point of view) since only the full power of God could could triumph over the offence, and the full power of God can only be manifest, not in strength, but in self sacrifice, and what seems, to human eyes, weakness.

In other words, what Boogie said.

--------------------
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
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The cross wasn't necessary to forgive sin -- God forgives sin because he is a forgiving God, not because something enables him to. The cross is necessary to break sin's power over us, power to come between us and God, power over us in death.

JohnnyS: i apologize for being snarky.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 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 Jolly Jape:
The point is, surely, that the seriousness or otherwise of an offence is not measured by whether it can be met with forgiveness, but rather by the cost of that forgiveness to the forgiver.

I suppose I'm asking whether that cost has to be quantified or not? I think that part of repentance involves a deliberate recognition of the cost involved in forgiveness.

Another illustration - my youngest daughter broke something precious to her sister to the other day. It was an accident in the sense that she didn't intend to break it, but it was her fault in that it was broken in a fit of temper. What was interesting was watching the dynamic of forgiveness in operation. At the time she said she was sorry and her big sister forgave her. However, the next day I was talking with her suggesting that she pay towards a replacement. At that point she got angry because she didn't think she should have to pay. It soon became clear that it was only being confronted by the cost of restitution that she understood what repentance meant.

Now, I'm sure you will say that restitution is not the same as punishment, and you are right. However, it still feels like punishment to my daughter. My question is whether or not 'punishment' (in this category sense of the word) is a necessary thing for us to appreciate the cost of forgiveness. Not that God demands a punishment per se but that we human beings need to see a cost paid to understand how much God loves us.

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

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The cross wasn't necessary to forgive sin -- God forgives sin because he is a forgiving God, not because something enables him to. The cross is necessary to break sin's power over us, power to come between us and God, power over us in death.

JohnnyS: i apologize for being snarky.

No worries.

Although you haven't explained what this has to do with 1 John 1: 9. There John says that God forgives because he is just, not because he is merciful.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And lots of other passages speak of his being merciful to us and forgiving us.

quote:
Numbers 14:18-19:
The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.

(Interesting about "clearing the guilty" while at the same time forgiving iniquity and transgressions! What's that about?!)

quote:
Psalm 103:
8The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.

9He will not always chide: neither will he keep his anger for ever.

10He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.

11For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him.

12As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

13Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him.

14For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust.

This Psalm is worth reading in full -- it too also talks about executing judgment for the downtrodden.

I remember reading that when people in the OT talked about justice and righteousness, it had to do with the judging/condemning of their enemies, not themselves. The day of judgment, for them, was a happy day because they would be set free from their oppressors and their oppressors will get their comeuppance. Because of course the people speaking/writing are the Hebrews, the chosen race, and their enemies are God's enemies.

They speak about God's mercy towards US, and his justice being rendered on THEM. We get off scott-free, while they are destroyed. And it's the same thing, two sides of the same coin. What is mercy for us is judgment and condemnation for them. God's mercy IS God's justice. Mercy is our experience of God's justice; condemnation and destruction is THEIR experience of God's justice. God shows his mercy to US by bringing THEM to justice. Or to put it another way, God's justice means acquitting us (in mercy) and convicting them.

In the NT, judgment is seen as a frightening thing because God is going to judge not our oppressors, but US. The Christian God isn't necessarily less of a smiter than the OT God; he just turns the smiting from our enemies onto us. When the gospel moved to just being for the Jews to being for all the nations (gentiles), the judgment of the nations ends up being the judgment of US.

In the NT, both God's mercy and her justice are directed towards US. Are they still the same thing?

(I'm sorry if some of this is repetitive but I'm tired and not functioning on all 2 cylinders.)

(Bruce Cockburn: "Everybody loves to see justice done on somebody else.")

[ 21. July 2010, 06:17: Message edited by: mousethief ]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The point is, surely, that the seriousness or otherwise of an offence is not measured by whether it can be met with forgiveness, but rather by the cost of that forgiveness to the forgiver.

I suppose I'm asking whether that cost has to be quantified or not? I think that part of repentance involves a deliberate recognition of the cost involved in forgiveness.

Another illustration - my youngest daughter broke something precious to her sister to the other day. It was an accident in the sense that she didn't intend to break it, but it was her fault in that it was broken in a fit of temper. What was interesting was watching the dynamic of forgiveness in operation. At the time she said she was sorry and her big sister forgave her. However, the next day I was talking with her suggesting that she pay towards a replacement. At that point she got angry because she didn't think she should have to pay. It soon became clear that it was only being confronted by the cost of restitution that she understood what repentance meant.

Now, I'm sure you will say that restitution is not the same as punishment, and you are right. However, it still feels like punishment to my daughter. My question is whether or not 'punishment' (in this category sense of the word) is a necessary thing for us to appreciate the cost of forgiveness. Not that God demands a punishment per se but that we human beings need to see a cost paid to understand how much God loves us.

Well, if you are saying that the cross demonstrates the cost of forgiveness, or rather, as you say, of restitution, you'll get no argument from me. As I think I said above, free forgiveness does not mean cost-free forgiveness. But I don't think that's PSA. In fact, your train of thought here seems towards an Abelardian, subjective understanding of atonement. Which is certainly part of the story, though not, as we would both agree, the whole story.

quote:

Although you haven't explained what this has to do with 1 John 1: 9. There John says that God forgives because he is just, not because he is merciful.

Not wishing to put words in Mousethief's mouth, but I think your're putting way more theological weight on this text than it is intended to stand. What John is saying, surely, is that forgiveness is compatible with the faithfulness and justice of God, and for that reason we can have confidence. He isn't saying anything about the mechanism of forgiveness. Of course, we can both affirm that verse without crossing our fingers, but we have very different notions of what it means when we say "God is just".

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

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

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But I don't think that's PSA. In fact, your train of thought here seems towards an Abelardian, subjective understanding of atonement.

Don't be misled by 'feels like punishment to my daughter' - it is punishment. This is still PSA.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Of course, we can both affirm that verse without crossing our fingers, but we have very different notions of what it means when we say "God is just".

Sure. I wasn't trying to 'proof-text' PSA here.

The fact that we have different notions is precisely the point. Psyduck's original hypothesis lies in tatters on the floor - everybody comes to these issues with very different notions. Therefore it is unfair to suggest that only one side has a theological grid through which they filter everything.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not sure that's what Psyduck was saying, or at least not entirely. It has been shown a couple of times here that at least some PSA advocates (for want of a better term) actually question the Christianity of those who do not hold PSA -- it seems to them an integral and necessary part, a sine qua non, of Christianity. Which is wrong-headed and historically indefensible.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16 
 
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