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 14)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  11  12  13  14  15  16 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: PSA and Christian Identities
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:
Are you saying his crippledness was due to his sin? What else can you mean by "dealing with the consequences of sin" in this particular passage?

Not his sin personally, but sin generally.

Otherwise it's apples and oranges. Jesus does not say that he performed this miracle to demonstrate that he was God generally, he specifically says that it proves that he has authority to forgive sins. There must be some connection between the two otherwise his claim doesn't make sense.

I think it makes sense in exactly the same way as, "Why do you call me good? Nobody is good except God" makes sense. He has power to forgive sins because he is God. Being God gives him the power to heal the sick. Healing the sick therefore shows he has the power to forgive sins.

--------------------
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:
I think it makes sense in exactly the same way as, "Why do you call me good? Nobody is good except God" makes sense. He has power to forgive sins because he is God. Being God gives him the power to heal the sick. Healing the sick therefore shows he has the power to forgive sins.

But you are filling in all those bits yourself. There is nothing in the text to suggest that train of thought. And against it you have the prevailing culture that did tend to assume that someone was ill because of sin - hence John 9 and the man born blind, for example.

I'm not saying that they were correct to assume that but that is surely the way those present would have understood it.

I'd suggest that your interpretation fits Psyduck's thesis about reading your own model back into the text. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure I'm guilty of doing the same. Let's stop pretending that that it is only one side who does it though.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not to the OP, but to the passage (tangent alert)__

This is how I read it rhetorically. Jesus says "Your sins are forgiven," who knows why he said it? Maybe the guy had a rep, maybe Jesus (being God) knew something about him that others didn't, maybe the sin/forgiveness thing was just clearly (to Jesus, anyway) the major crying need this poor guy had--even above physical healing. Anyway, he says it. Leading to---

Someone gives Jesus grief for saying it, since "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" In other words, you are a presumptuous, blaspheming whadjamacallit. The question is clearly rhetorical.

Surprisingly (to them, anyway) Jesus takes them up on it. "Well now," he says, "Which is easier to say, 'your sins are forgiven,' or 'be healed'?

This is where the catch comes in. Both are equally easy to pronounce--forming the words with one's mouth and tongue is equally easy, duh. Both are equally impossible to say and have them come true --unless the speaker is God.

In this test, the two expressions have become equivalent. The only difference between them is that it is humanly, physically possible to see whether one of them has come true (the healing thing). The other remains invisible, and therefore arguable, whether it happens or not.

Jesus has already said the first (invisible results, no proof) statement. And he's gotten very predictable crap for it.

So after getting no response to his "which is harder" challenge (hard to think of one, I must say, I'd probably just gibber), he turns to the guy and says the one God-statement that remains, and that CAN be physically verified: Be healed.

The guy walks out, a bunch of tiny minds are blown, and the rhetorical exercise is over. Q.E.D.

[ 26. July 2010, 00:28: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Interesting how you turn this from an exegesis into a personal attack, or at least personal swipe.

We have to make sense of our Lord's connecting "forgiveness of sins" and healing this man. Healing this man shows that he has power to forgive sins, according to the text. Is it eisegesis to say that only God can forgive sins? Indeed if we look at Mark instead of Matthew, our Lord's detractors say exactly that: "Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?" (Mark 2:7). How is it eisegesis then to say that Christ's healing the man was a demonstration of his divinity?

On the other hand, connecting the man's condition to the results of sin to the remission of sins on the Cross, and then linking that remission back through the chain to the forgiveness of sins, is a far bigger leap.

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

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

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry; crosspost. This was in response to Johnny S, not Lamb Chopped.

--------------------
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:
Interesting how you turn this from an exegesis into a personal attack, or at least personal swipe.

[Confused] Where was the personal attack? The OP and this thread is about a very direct charge that those who support PSA read their model into scripture everywhere.

All I said was I think you are doing it here and I happily conceded that I'm doing the same. How is that a personal swipe? Surely part of the response to such a charge is to show that others do it too and that it isn't a problem particular to PSAers?


quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We have to make sense of our Lord's connecting "forgiveness of sins" and healing this man. Healing this man shows that he has power to forgive sins, according to the text. Is it eisegesis to say that only God can forgive sins? Indeed if we look at Mark instead of Matthew, our Lord's detractors say exactly that: "Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?" (Mark 2:7). How is it eisegesis then to say that Christ's healing the man was a demonstration of his divinity?

It is not eisegesis to say that Christ's healing was a demonstration of his divinity. (BTW I'm happy with LC's reading with the passage.)

The extra step you are inserting is that this passage demonstrates that God's forgiveness is unconditional in the sense of automatic. I'm saying that this passage could mean that, but I don't think it does.

The fact that Jesus says this directly to only one man out of a crowd combined with the fact he never once said something to the effect of "everybody is already forgiven" are two issues that your interpretation has to wrestle with. Yet again none of this proves PSA it just raises questions about the way you are handling the passage.


quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
On the other hand, connecting the man's condition to the results of sin to the remission of sins on the Cross, and then linking that remission back through the chain to the forgiveness of sins, is a far bigger leap.

Except I specifically didn't do that. Jamat did. I didn't.
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:
It is not eisegesis to say that Christ's healing was a demonstration of his divinity. (BTW I'm happy with LC's reading with the passage.)

The extra step you are inserting is that this passage demonstrates that God's forgiveness is unconditional in the sense of automatic. I'm saying that this passage could mean that, but I don't think it does.

I don't remember ever saying God's forgiveness is automatic. I certainly don't think that this passage proves it. I used this passage to show that God's forgiveness can be separated from God's dealing with sin. I thought I made that explicit; sorry if I was unclear.

--------------------
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:
2And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.

3And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.

4And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? 5For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? 6But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

7And he arose, and departed to his house.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God said, "Your sins are forgiven" and "Rise up and walk" the same way he had said, "Let there be light." This isn't a secondary thing, it's not the result of something else. It's something that he does as God.

So you would say he just chose to forgive sins here without needing any reason or basis?

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

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

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't remember ever saying God's forgiveness is automatic. I certainly don't think that this passage proves it. I used this passage to show that God's forgiveness can be separated from God's dealing with sin. I thought I made that explicit; sorry if I was unclear.

Okay, well then I'm saying that although I think it is possible to read Mark 2 that way I think it is not a very likely reading.

Your argument rests on the likelihood that his hearers would make the assumption that only God can heal. However, while the assumption that only God can forgive sins is referred to there is no such assumption given about healing. Quite the contrary just over the page in the next chapter (Mark 3: 22) the same group (the teachers of the law) are now trying (rather pathetically) to claim that Jesus gets his miraculous powers from Beelzebub.

On the other hand there is evidence from the gospels (e.g. the passage from John 9 I mentioned earlier) that his hearers would automatically assume that there was some connection between sin and this man's suffering. Is that any surprise when you read the OT, the Psalms especially? (e.g. Psalm 103 v 3).

Jesus says, specifically, "that you may know that the son of man has authority to forgive sins ..." He does not say anything about claiming to be God here. That is an inference, probably a legitimate one to draw here, but not the main point of what Jesus is saying here, ISTM.

Jesus is proving he has the power to forgive sins by dealing with the symptoms of sin.

So yes, I suppose that this passage could possibly mean what you are suggesting but the balance is definitely against it.

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:
Your argument rests on the likelihood that his hearers would make the assumption that only God can heal. However, while the assumption that only God can forgive sins is referred to there is no such assumption given about healing.

Jesus himself makes the connection. "So that you can see the son of man has the power to forgive sins," he said to the man, "take up thy mat and walk". He directly ties the power to forgive sins (which his adversaries themselves said only God could do) with healing. He doesn't say anything about remitting sins. My interpretation is right there in the pericope itself. You are importing yours from outside (Psalms, etc. as you admit).

quote:
Jesus says, specifically, "that you may know that the son of man has authority to forgive sins ..." He does not say anything about claiming to be God here. That is an inference, probably a legitimate one to draw here, but not the main point of what Jesus is saying here, ISTM.
Because you are reading it in from elsewhere. My interpretation is right there in black and white. Jesus ties forgiving sins with healing, and his adversaries claim only God can forgive sins. It's a neat and tidy little syllogism.

1. Only God can forgive sins (supplied by adversaries)
2. If you can heal, you have the power to forgive sins (said by Jesus)
3. Jesus can heal (shown by his actions)
4. Jesus can therefore forgive sins (from 2 and 3)
5. Therefore Jesus is God. (from 1 and 4)

quote:
Jesus is proving he has the power to forgive sins by dealing with the symptoms of sin.
There is just absolutely nothing in the passage to suggest that reading.

quote:
So yes, I suppose that this passage could possibly mean what you are suggesting but the balance is definitely against it.
Only if you use PSA as an overriding hermeneutical principle. As Psyduck says.

--------------------
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:

2. If you can heal, you have the power to forgive sins (said by Jesus).

Where does Jesus say that?
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 
But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, 11"I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home."

He quite explicitly says that the healing will show them that he has the authority to forgive sins. If ability to heal, then ability to forgive sins. I fail to see what you're not getting.

--------------------
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 that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, 11"I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home."

He quite explicitly says that the healing will show them that he has the authority to forgive sins. If ability to heal, then ability to forgive sins. I fail to see what you're not getting.

What I'm not getting is this ...

Going from

He quite explicitly says that the healing will show them that he has the authority to forgive sins

to

If ability to heal, then ability to forgive sins

seems to be a logical fallacy to me. It may be true but it does not necessarily follow.

I repeat what I said earlier - the very same teachers of the law in chapter 3 attribute Christ's healing power to Beelzebub. Clearly the link from 'Jesus healed this man' to 'Jesus must have the authority to forgive sins' was not obvious to them.

What I am calling into question is how Jesus expected his hearers to get from 'healing' to 'authority to forgive sins'. you are assuming a generic connection automatic to healing, I'm not convinced that makes sense of Mark 2 - in the very next story Jesus describes himself as a 'doctor for sinners'. ISTM that in Mark's gospel there is a connecting idea between physical healing and dealing with sin.

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 
So you say you don't see it at all, then immediately turn around and say you see it, if you import this other PSA-like idea from somewhere else. We've probably gotten as far as we can on this.

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Um (edges in where angels fear to tread)...

I think you guys have got a confusion going between cause and effect and correlatives.

Being able to heal and being able to forgive sins are logically two separate things; neither causes the other, neither implies the other, but a relationship does exist. The relationship is that they are correlatives--each is a consequence of the same third, causal fact (being God almighty).

Being God, therefore Christ can forgive.
Being God, therefore Christ can heal.
Being God, therefore Christ can (do any number of other things we can't).

The forgiveness doesn't flow out of the healing or vice versa. They run in parallel. But either, or both together, make a clear statement about the person doing them: He's God.

What I was suggesting was simply that in terms of rhetoric, Jesus chose to swap out one parallel correlative for another that happened to be more visible (and therefore more convincing to stubborn minds). Take that last sentence of his, "But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins... Get up and walk." If you parse it out and fill in all the understood bits from the discussion they've all just had, it might well come out this way: "But tht you may know that the Son of Man (aka Me) has the authority to forgive sins--that is, duh, I AM GOD, connect the dots with me, folks--I am going to do in front of your everloving eyes something else that even you can't deny is a prerogative of Godhood: I'm going to heal someone with the mere power of my word, thus: Get up and walk. Do you geddit now???"

[ 28. July 2010, 03:34: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's what I meant and what I thought I had said.

--------------------
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 Lamb Chopped:
I think you guys have got a confusion going between cause and effect and correlatives.

Being able to heal and being able to forgive sins are logically two separate things; neither causes the other, neither implies the other, but a relationship does exist. The relationship is that they are correlatives--each is a consequence of the same third, causal fact (being God almighty).

Thanks LC. That is the issue I was talking about and you have articulated it much more clearly than I did.

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Being God, therefore Christ can forgive.
Being God, therefore Christ can heal.
Being God, therefore Christ can (do any number of other things we can't).

The forgiveness doesn't flow out of the healing or vice versa. They run in parallel. But either, or both together, make a clear statement about the person doing them: He's God.

And that is the bit of the argument I'm not convinced about from Mark's gospel.

I think it is true and also think that is part of the conclusion Jesus was hoping his hearers would draw. But I also think Mark 2 must be more complicated than that.

It is clear from Mark's gospel that it was not a common assumption to say that only God can heal. The teachers of the law were quite happy to attribute the power to heal or cast out demons to either a divine or demonic source. The logical fallacy I think is being made here is this:

1. Only God can forgive.
2. Only God can heal.
3. Jesus can heal.
4. Therefore Jesus is God.
5. Therefore Jesus can forgive.

But as I keep saying point number 2 is not a given - in fact the text of Mark's gospel itself seriously undermines it. And hence the whole argument falls.

[tangent/] (BTW I also think this kind of arguing is what atheists and agnostics pick up on quickly when Christians far too quickly jump to - "See Jesus must be God." But that is a tangent.) [/tangent]

Therefore I think from the text that there must be something else going on here.

Now I repeat. None of this has got anything to do with PSA. I'm arguing this from the text of Mark. I remember preaching a sermon on this 20 years ago and saying pretty much the same thing - namely that the link is not just that God is in the forgiving business but also the connection of symptom and disease.

Again, I'm sure that was because of my preconceptions. I freely admit that. But my point is that I came to those conclusions when being asked to preach on this story from Mark 20 years before we had this conversation. I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it and looking for every opportunity to disagree with MT and others who reject PSA - this is the way I have always read this passage.

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 
But Jesus says, "to show you that the son of man has authority to forgive sins, get up and walk." How does that show he has the power to forgive sins? Do you think his listeners really said, "well, it's because lameness is the result of sin, and removing lameness means he has the ability to remove sin"? REALLY?

--------------------
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:
But Jesus says, "to show you that the son of man has authority to forgive sins, get up and walk." How does that show he has the power to forgive sins? Do you think his listeners really said, "well, it's because lameness is the result of sin, and removing lameness means he has the ability to remove sin"? REALLY?

Well as you say you've gone as far as one can go if the discussion is limited to this passage alone. If as you put it, your reading is 'right in the passage' and other readings are not, you are claiming some authoritative interpretive ability that you are denying others.

The thing is that no one takes a passage in isolation and if you don't, if you look at the rest of what Jesus said and did, and what others said about him, the reading that forgiveness is his perogative is certainly reached, but the basis of that forgiveness is also clarified.

It is worth mentioning, I think, that healings were not altogether uncommon and nor was the casting out of demons. By linking healing and forgiveness Jesus was getting political for the fact was that only God could forgive even if healing was otherwise possible.

He was therefore making a messianic claim in this passage. It was not that his hearers would have made connections regarding the lame man and his sin..though of course the disciples did exactly this with the blind man in John 9, it is rather that Jesus is emphasising by the forgiveness statement that this particular healing was done by God. He was anticipating the very thing they suggested a bit further on, that his healings were satanic, that he was demon possessed.

Sorry for tangent.

--------------------
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
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
What I'm not getting is this ...

Going from

He quite explicitly says that the healing will show them that he has the authority to forgive sins

to

If ability to heal, then ability to forgive sins

seems to be a logical fallacy to me. It may be true but it does not necessarily follow.

I won't claim to have followed the entire argument, but I'm reading and re-reading these two sentences and they look like they do logically follow, because they say one and the same thing.

This is because actual healing is a proof of 'ability to heal'.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Addendum: Whether you think either sentence is CORRECT is a different issue, and I do understand some of the points being made about whether 'only God can heal' is a correct statement.

But I think I'm with mousethief. I'm not sure there's any basis for saying that, eg, healings were attributed to demons. Driving out demons was attributed to demons, yes... and elsewhere Jesus states that this is an incorrect attribution.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
IMV God can forgive a murderer but still approve of the jail sentence for the crime. The consequences of sin are not erased by forgiveness. Forgiveness has to do with right standing with God not the erasure of consequence imv.

Yes. Exactly! Forgiveness is one thing, erasure of consequence (accomplished through the cross and resurrection) is another.
Forgive me [Biased] as I catch up here on a few things.

Jolly Jape referred to having a model that was 'substitutionary' but not 'penal'. Is that what this fits with? That the cross involves Jesus taking on the consequence, hence 'substitutionary'?

If so, I'll have supplementary questions about what critics of 'PSA' see as being the difference between 'PSA' and plain 'SA'...

[ 28. July 2010, 08:26: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Apologies for yet another post. But I was reflecting further on this as I drove home. And yes, I did somehow keep my eyes on the road and think about PSA at the same time - in the rain no less. There's an argument for the existence of miracles right there...

I'm beginning to wonder whether some of the arguments here are making distinctions that normal English word order doesn't cope well with, and it's just creating confusion.

"Penal substitionary atonement" contains 2 adjectives then a noun. And it's perfectly possible to read the 'penal' in 2 different ways. You can link it to the 'atonement', and see it as meaning that the process of atonement involved paying a penalty. You can also link it to the 'substitionary' and say that the atonement was in substition for a penalty.

It seems to me at the moment that there is some argument against 'PSA' that is based on an assumption that 'PSA' involves Christ paying a penalty (cf Jolly Jape's posts on the previous page). I'm wondering if this is a a bit of a straw man, though, because if you argue that Christ did something 'substitutionary', then you end up asking 'what was it in substitution for'. And if it was in substitution for a 'penalty', then 'Atonement in substitution for a penalty' or 'ASP' is in fact one version of what 'PSA' could refer to. As soon as you remove the prepositions, it's not self-evident that 'ASP' and 'PSA' are different things.

And a 'penalty' and a 'consequence' are much the same thing. So I find myself looking at what mousethief has said, and feel as if he's arguing vigorously against 'PSA' while subscribing to 'ASP'.

Now, these are just initial thoughts, and I'm quite willing for someone to start presenting the reasons why 'PSA' is completely different to 'ASP', or why the atonement is not 'in substitution for' a penalty/consequence. But 2 adjectives preceding a noun is a good recipe for ambiguity.

Mousethief's distinction between 'forgiving sins' and 'dealing with the consequences of sin' is one that I think might be more substantial.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
orfeo, I know that myself and mousethief think slightly differently about this, but I think that the "substitution" in SA is about Jesus substituting for us. To put it crudely, we are unable to defeat death, because we are not God. But if death is not defeated (if you like, the consequence of sin is not overthrown or healed) we cannot experience eternal life, since we are slaves to death, and will inevitably (pace St Clive) diminish to, presumably, non-existance. Therefore, because God's desire is for us to have eternal life, Jesus "substitutes" for us, does what we are incapable of doing, defeating death on our behalf.

I'm not at all sure that a penalty and a consequence are the same thing. Surely a penalty requires a penaliser. This penaliser could be God (PSA) or Satan (Ransom). A consequence, on the other had) carries no sense of an external agent acting from outside the system under consideration. It is merely the natural outworking, in the absence of external constraint, of that system. Which is how I understand the relationship between sin and death. As Paul points out, they are basically the same thing, but the one (sin) is the cause and the other (death) is the effect.

--------------------
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
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I would say forgiveness of sins has temporal benefits. As each person lets go and is able to forgive something, the whole of humanity improves by a step.

The consequences of sin are temporal too and affect us all in many interconnected ways. (Often long lasting but still 'of this world')

So Jesus showed us the way to forgive - He didn't remove any of the consequences as can be seen all around us, imo. We still suffer.

The eternal, spiritual effects/consequences are unknown and the cleverest of theology can only, in the end, be speculation.

Is 'disconnection from God' sin anyway? Who decided so? There are so many reasons a person may be an unbeliever - why would it be considered a cause for God to reject them?

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

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

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm not at all sure that a penalty and a consequence are the same thing. Surely a penalty requires a penaliser. This penaliser could be God (PSA) or Satan (Ransom). A consequence, on the other had) carries no sense of an external agent acting from outside the system under consideration. It is merely the natural outworking, in the absence of external constraint, of that system. Which is how I understand the relationship between sin and death. As Paul points out, they are basically the same thing, but the one (sin) is the cause and the other (death) is the effect.

Okay, I see what you're saying here...

Thanks. Seriously, this is as much about me trying to wrap my head around it as anything else.

So maybe I can sign up for believing in 'ASC' - Atonement in Substitution for a Consequence. [Big Grin]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  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 orfeo:
.

So maybe I can sign up for believing in 'ASC' - Atonement in Substitution for a Consequence. [Big Grin]

But what consequence?

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

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

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

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

So maybe I can sign up for believing in 'ASC' - Atonement in Substitution for a Consequence. [Big Grin]

But what consequence?
Well, you've already made your views clear on that. You don't accept 'death' as a consequence, so you clearly wouldn't accept Jesus' death as a substitution.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Okay, moving on... if PSA is incorrect, then what would be the point of the Old Testament animal sacrifices? What purpose do they serve, and why did God require them?

Genuinely curious now. And sorry if that's been addressed any more than a page and a half back, I just can't process all the material in this thread. I didn't keep track of it when it started and I probably should have.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So what would you mean by 'death'?

(I am not being awkward - just trying to get my head round why you would think that God would cut Himself off from anyone)

--------------------
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 
Many, many cultures had animal sacrifice to appease gods. Surely the OT stuff was no different?

I see it as part of the history of the Jewish nation which brought us Jesus.

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

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

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
So what would you mean by 'death'?

(I am not being awkward - just trying to get my head round why you would think that God would cut Himself off from anyone)

Well, as Jolly Jape has put it, we are talking about death as a natural consequence of sin. In that situation, asking 'why would God cut Himself off from anyone' is a bit like asking 'why would someone who jumped off a building then choose to fall towards the ground instead of floating upwards'.

As to what 'death' means - whether it means eternal separation from God in Hell, or whether it ultimately means oblivion - is another question which I don't think it's essential to go into for these purposes.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  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 orfeo:
Okay, moving on... if PSA is incorrect, then what would be the point of the Old Testament animal sacrifices? What purpose do they serve, and why did God require them?

Genuinely curious now. And sorry if that's been addressed any more than a page and a half back, I just can't process all the material in this thread. I didn't keep track of it when it started and I probably should have.

Sacrifice was a means of re-presenting the covenant, which was establihed by sacrifice. Sacrifice was commonly used in the ancient near east as a means of solemnizing a covenant. It spoke of the investment which the participants held in the covenant.

The purpose of sacrifice was not that it was salvific, but rather it reminded the sacrificers of the covenant, which was salvific. Think the Eucharist here. We aren't saved by the eucharist, but by the eucharist we participate in the life of Christ, who does save us.

Not sure I've explained this well, but hope you get the picture.

--------------------
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
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay, moving on... if PSA is incorrect, then what would be the point of the Old Testament animal sacrifices? What purpose do they serve, and why did God require them?

Genuinely curious now. And sorry if that's been addressed any more than a page and a half back, I just can't process all the material in this thread. I didn't keep track of it when it started and I probably should have.

Sacrifice was a means of re-presenting the covenant, which was establihed by sacrifice. Sacrifice was commonly used in the ancient near east as a means of solemnizing a covenant. It spoke of the investment which the participants held in the covenant.

The purpose of sacrifice was not that it was salvific, but rather it reminded the sacrificers of the covenant, which was salvific. Think the Eucharist here. We aren't saved by the eucharist, but by the eucharist we participate in the life of Christ, who does save us.

Not sure I've explained this well, but hope you get the picture.

Hmm, okay...

...and the scapegoat?

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  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 orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
So what would you mean by 'death'?

(I am not being awkward - just trying to get my head round why you would think that God would cut Himself off from anyone)

Well, as Jolly Jape has put it, we are talking about death as a natural consequence of sin. In that situation, asking 'why would God cut Himself off from anyone' is a bit like asking 'why would someone who jumped off a building then choose to fall towards the ground instead of floating upwards'.

As to what 'death' means - whether it means eternal separation from God in Hell, or whether it ultimately means oblivion - is another question which I don't think it's essential to go into for these purposes.

Yes - I understand.

But that is PSAs or ASPs problem for me. I can't see death as a bad thing (Except when it happens to deprive me of my loved ones!) just as a natural consequence of life.


<I will leave it at that as I ddon't think there is a way past our different assumptions really [Smile] >

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

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hi orfeo,

The scapegoat itself wasn't killed, let alone sacrificed. Indeed, as a sin-bearer, it was unclean, and so could not have been sacrificed. It was driven out into the desert as a symbol of the putting away of sin. I'm sure Girard has something to say in this. The goat that was sacrificed pointed to the covenant promise to remember their sins no more.

--------------------
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 
Boogie, I'm not sure how you square your understanding of death with the thrust of the NT that death is the enemy to be defeated, that which would ultimately destroy God's handiwork. What of the promises that death will be no more? Of course, we arn't talking about "physical" death primarily, but I think it still stands that death, whether temporal or eternal, is something outside God's best intention for us.

--------------------
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
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I believe the promise that death will be no more - but I think this will be for every one of us - no conditions attached. I don't think one, brief, confused lifetime is enough to get it all sorted - whether that means believing the right things or doing the right things.

I think God is much bigger and better than that. S/he wants all of us to live with him/her in love - and has eternity to win us over [Smile]

Those (of whatever faith) who are closest to being 'won over' by God are at peace.

Jesus did (get it all sorted) - and showed us the way, but He was pretty rare.

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

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  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 Boogie:
I believe the promise that death will be no more - but I think this will be for every one of us - no conditions attached. I don't think one, brief, confused lifetime is enough to get it all sorted - whether that means believing the right things or doing the right things.

I think God is much bigger and better than that. S/he wants all of us to live with him/her in love - and has eternity to win us over [Smile]

Those (of whatever faith) who are closest to being 'won over' by God are at peace.

Jesus did (get it all sorted) - and showed us the way, but He was pretty rare.

Hmmn, methinks you are kicking at an open door here. The Atonement is an account (or maybe several alternative or complementary accounts) of how God brings about the promise that death will be no more. Belief in an objective atonement doesn't preclude any of the things you have written above. Nor does it suggest necessarily that God's offer is anything other than unconditional. Of course, there is debate about this, but it is not a debate upon which the atonement depends, but rather one about what the consequences of the atonement are.

[ 28. July 2010, 14:40: 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
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598

 - Posted      Profile for sanityman   Email sanityman   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The purpose of sacrifice was not that it was salvific, but rather it reminded the sacrificers of the covenant, which was salvific. Think the Eucharist here. We aren't saved by the eucharist, but by the eucharist we participate in the life of Christ, who does save us.

Don't want to open a can of worms here, but isn't the point of Christ's death that is was a sacrifice that was salvitic? Or am I reading too much into Hebrews? I can grok that Hebrews was a way of explaining Christ's death in terms of temple sacrifices for people for whom that was profoundly appropriate, but if Christ's death enacted the New Covenant, that seems to be at odds with what you said.

- 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
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Jolly Jape referred to having a model that was 'substitutionary' but not 'penal'. Is that what this fits with? That the cross involves Jesus taking on the consequence, hence 'substitutionary'?

If so, I'll have supplementary questions about what critics of 'PSA' see as being the difference between 'PSA' and plain 'SA'...

But I don't believe I said Jesus "took on" the consequences, but rather that he "dealt with" the consequences.

But even if we say he "took on" the consequences, is that substitutionary? I think there is a great deal of confusion between doing something for or on behalf of someone, and doing something in place of someone. Part of this is because most of the things people do for us, we could have done for ourselves, so the distinction can be blurry. So to show they are two different things, it is necessary to find examples where one couldn't have done it for oneself. My wife's going to the store to get a soda for me when I'm sick can be taken either way. Her throwing me a surprise party cannot -- there is no way I can throw myself a surprise party, so there is no sense in which she did it instead of me. She did not substitute for me, she merely did it for me.

So with the atonement. Jesus did it for us but did not do it in our place. This can be seen partly because our dying wouldn't destroy sin, and partly because what he did isn't what he's saving us from. He didn't spend an eternity in torment in place of us. That would be substituting.

He spent about 48 hours dead, and we have no indication at all that during the time he was dead he underwent the famed torments of Hell. Peter says he went and preached to the spirits in bondage, which rather indicates he was in charge of the situation. It's people like Benny Hinn who preach that he was tormented by Satan. Heretics.

--------------------
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 sanityman:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The purpose of sacrifice was not that it was salvific, but rather it reminded the sacrificers of the covenant, which was salvific. Think the Eucharist here. We aren't saved by the eucharist, but by the eucharist we participate in the life of Christ, who does save us.

Don't want to open a can of worms here, but isn't the point of Christ's death that is was a sacrifice that was salvitic? Or am I reading too much into Hebrews? I can grok that Hebrews was a way of explaining Christ's death in terms of temple sacrifices for people for whom that was profoundly appropriate, but if Christ's death enacted the New Covenant, that seems to be at odds with what you said.

- Chris.

Well, of course sacrifice is one (legitimate) way of understanding the Atonement, but the question was about OT sacrifice. Viewed from our perspective (and that of the author of Hebrews) we can see that Christ offers Himself as the ultimate sacrifice, and so demonstrates God's covenant committment to humankind, but to those before Christ, it was faith in the covenant, or rather the faithfulness of God in honouring His covenant, which was salvific. But as well as a Sacrifice, Christ is also the personification of that covenant, so, in Him, the salvific purposes of God and the sacrifice which directs us to Him, come together.

--------------------
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 
Sorry that most of my posts are rather hit and run at the moment. RL is keeping me busy. So I'll make several posts now and then come back to this later.

quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
But Jesus says, "to show you that the son of man has authority to forgive sins, get up and walk." How does that show he has the power to forgive sins? Do you think his listeners really said, "well, it's because lameness is the result of sin, and removing lameness means he has the ability to remove sin"? REALLY?

No, I haven't said that. What I said was that they would not have made the logical connection that you are suggesting. Pretty obviously really or their response to Jesus would have been rather different at the time.

Remember I was not the one who brought Mark 2 up - it was brought up, apparently, to show that God does not have to do anything (i.e. deal with sin) in order to forgive. What I'm saying is that you can't deduce that from this passage.

Indeed you haven't engaged with the context of the surrounding chapters. It is interesting to notice that in the 'beezebub' passage in chapter 3 Jesus himself talks about the unforgiveable sin. I realise that there is much debate over what Jesus means by this but I would have thought that to have the category of an unforgiveable sin at all is a fatal wound for your argument.

Clearly God is not willing / able to forgive some people. What else can an unforgiveable sin mean?

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Addendum: Whether you think either sentence is CORRECT is a different issue, and I do understand some of the points being made about whether 'only God can heal' is a correct statement.

But I think I'm with mousethief. I'm not sure there's any basis for saying that, eg, healings were attributed to demons. Driving out demons was attributed to demons, yes... and elsewhere Jesus states that this is an incorrect attribution.

I'm really surprised that there is even any discussion about this.

My argument is simply that healing someone was not considered proof of divinity since healing could be attributed to other sources. I would have thought this was one of the easiest things to demonstrate in the gospels, e.g.:

1. Jesus sent out the 12 and the 72 to, amongst other things, heal people (Mark 6: 13). Were people to think that the disciples were God too?

2. In the Sermon on the Mount (end of Matthew 7) Jesus himself talks about people who will not enter the kingdom because they do not even know God, and yet they have performed miracles in his name. Jesus didn't think that miracles were even proof of knowing God, never mind being God.

Therefore the link between healing and forgiving sins cannot have included the step 'only God can heal' because it was not an accepted axiom at the time. Hence the connection must be more complicated than is being made out.

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 Jolly Jape:
I'm not at all sure that a penalty and a consequence are the same thing. Surely a penalty requires a penaliser. This penaliser could be God (PSA) or Satan (Ransom). A consequence, on the other had) carries no sense of an external agent acting from outside the system under consideration. It is merely the natural outworking, in the absence of external constraint, of that system. Which is how I understand the relationship between sin and death. As Paul points out, they are basically the same thing, but the one (sin) is the cause and the other (death) is the effect.

Please forgive me for being repetitive JJ but this is still one massive cop-out.

How can the creator of the universe not be responsible, at least in some sense, for the consequences that exist in his creation?

Even them most open of open theism still sees God as creator and therefore outside of his creation. I'm not aware of any form of orthodox Christianity that would have a doctrine of God that would enable you to make this claim.

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

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm not at all sure that a penalty and a consequence are the same thing. Surely a penalty requires a penaliser. This penaliser could be God (PSA) or Satan (Ransom). A consequence, on the other had) carries no sense of an external agent acting from outside the system under consideration. It is merely the natural outworking, in the absence of external constraint, of that system. Which is how I understand the relationship between sin and death. As Paul points out, they are basically the same thing, but the one (sin) is the cause and the other (death) is the effect.

Please forgive me for being repetitive JJ but this is still one massive cop-out.

How can the creator of the universe not be responsible, at least in some sense, for the consequences that exist in his creation?

Even them most open of open theism still sees God as creator and therefore outside of his creation. I'm not aware of any form of orthodox Christianity that would have a doctrine of God that would enable you to make this claim.

Huh???

Firstly, I'm not sure what you mean by God being not outside His creation. It sounds like some form of panentheism, which is not, I assume, what you mean.

Secondly, I'll see your Open Theism, and raise you a Hypercalvinism. The logic of your position is that, when a person falls off a high building, he or she is being punished by God for the sin of trying to violate the law of gravity, He ordered the world in that way, so clearly anyone who dies in that way must do so by volitional act of God! Again, I assume, this is not a position that you hold. If a sin/punishment paradigm is not valid for this situation, why is it so incredible to you that it is not valid in the context of the things we are discussing here?

Furthermore, there is an ocean of difference between God being responsible for His creation in the widest sense, and assigning to every detail of its workings a volitional component. Not even the good lawyer of Geneva went that far.

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

 - Posted      Profile for sanityman   Email sanityman   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[x-posted with JJ]
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, of course sacrifice is one (legitimate) way of understanding the Atonement, but the question was about OT sacrifice. Viewed from our perspective (and that of the author of Hebrews) we can see that Christ offers Himself as the ultimate sacrifice, and so demonstrates God's covenant committment to humankind, but to those before Christ, it was faith in the covenant, or rather the faithfulness of God in honouring His covenant, which was salvific. But as well as a Sacrifice, Christ is also the personification of that covenant, so, in Him, the salvific purposes of God and the sacrifice which directs us to Him, come together.

Thanks, JJ, that's very helpful. I suppose I'd always read Hebrews as saying that Christ's death was ontologically like OT sacrifices, but more efficacious. If I understand you correctly, that may be so, but it's not the basis of the forgiveness of sins. The confusing thing is that - unlike the Mosaic covenant - the enactment of the new covenant and the once-for-all sacrifice are the same event.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
How can the creator of the universe not be responsible, at least in some sense, for the consequences that exist in his creation?

Even them most open of open theism still sees God as creator and therefore outside of his creation. I'm not aware of any form of orthodox Christianity that would have a doctrine of God that would enable you to make this claim.

Not wishing to speak for JJ, but I don't think you need to have a God divorced from His creation to look at it like this. If someone jumped off a cliff, most people would not say "God threw him down and dashed him on the rocks below" - they'd say he fell. God is not required to be happy about the chain of events, but he did put in place the system that makes jumping off cliffs possible, together with the physical consequences. It's part of the way the world works, and in this case we understand why it could not really be otherwise, gravity being generally considered necessary.

In the same way, might not "the wages of sin is death" be part of the moral, rather than physical, created order?

- Chris.

[ 29. July 2010, 08:26: Message edited by: sanityman ]

--------------------
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
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

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

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, of course sacrifice is one (legitimate) way of understanding the Atonement, but the question was about OT sacrifice. Viewed from our perspective (and that of the author of Hebrews) we can see that Christ offers Himself as the ultimate sacrifice, and so demonstrates God's covenant committment to humankind, but to those before Christ, it was faith in the covenant, or rather the faithfulness of God in honouring His covenant, which was salvific. But as well as a Sacrifice, Christ is also the personification of that covenant, so, in Him, the salvific purposes of God and the sacrifice which directs us to Him, come together.

Thanks, JJ, that's very helpful. I suppose I'd always read Hebrews as saying that Christ's death was ontologically like OT sacrifices, but more efficacious. If I understand you correctly, that may be so, but it's not the basis of the forgiveness of sins. The confusing thing is that - unlike the Mosaic covenant - the enactment of the new covenant and the once-for-all sacrifice are the same event.

Hmm. This reminds me of something. Many, many years ago (like, when I was a teenager) I went through a course of study that argued there were 2 distinct functions of the cross, and that we tended to mix them up.

Pity I don't have the course materials to hand, I think they're still at my parents house somewhere!

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  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 sanityman
I suppose I'd always read Hebrews as saying that Christ's death was ontologically like OT sacrifices, but more efficacious. If I understand you correctly, that may be so, but it's not the basis of the forgiveness of sins. The confusing thing is that - unlike the Mosaic covenant - the enactment of the new covenant and the once-for-all sacrifice are the same event.

Thanks, Chris, for that summary. Yes, I think that this is what I am saying, but I sort of shot from the hip a bit, and haven't really thought this bit through in a systematic way as yet. I do, though, think there is some mileage in the idea of Jesus as the Promise, the personification and not just the authenticator of the covenant. It gives an interesting new emphasis to verses like 1 Cor 1:20
quote:
For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God.


[ 29. July 2010, 08:48: 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
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598

 - Posted      Profile for sanityman   Email sanityman   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
orfeo - I'm intrigued: it's a new idea for me, coming out of what JJ said. Would be interested if you felt like saying more.

JJ: thanks, and sorry for the tangent. I like your idea and quote about 'promise' - need to think more about this.

- 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
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Mousethief:So with the atonement. Jesus did it for us but did not do it in our place. This can be seen partly because our dying wouldn't destroy sin, and partly because what he did isn't what he's saving us from. He didn't spend an eternity in torment in place of us. That would be substituting.
I think this is hair splitting but even if it is not, you seem to be confusing Jesus as God with Jesus as man.

The atonement works before God because Jesus walked through the cross as man. It was in the generic sense, as a representation of human kind that he was able to offer himself as the propitiary sacrifice. He certainly did not have to undergo eternal hell torment on our behalf but he did taste death.

However, the reason his death did destroy sin is quite evident. He was a sinless man. The consequences of sinful men could not be applied to him. The fact that the benefit of this victory is ours by faith is the supreme testimony to the Father's grace towards us. He sees Jesus' death as sufficient for the purpose of destroying sin. We benefit if we believe it.

Incidentally I think you are absolutely right regarding any assertion that the devil was allowed to torment him. Colossians deals with that idea pretty well. If there was any tormenting, Jesus did it when he led captivity captive!

[ 29. July 2010, 09:54: 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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  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