|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: PSA and Christian Identities
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
So - if you are bad enough Jesus is happy to torment you?
Comforting if you feel like you are on the good side.
I take comfort from God's forgiveness and mercy as I'm not one of the good guys.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
So - if you are bad enough Jesus is happy to torment you?
Comforting if you feel like you are on the good side.
I take comfort from God's forgiveness and mercy as I'm not one of the good guys.
I think Jamat was referring to the Harrowing of Hell
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
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.
There is no need for any determinism at all.
I said responsible in some way. I'm not saying necessarily that God is physically doing the punishing, but I stick by my point that it is a cop-out to hide behind the word 'consequence' in the way that you are doing.
If a law is passed and the punishment set for breaking the law, it is usually up to others to enforce the law but the one who made the law in the first place still takes responsibility for it. In such a case people are still free to choose whether they will keep or break the law.
However, you are using the word law in a completely different way when speaking of gravity. (Indeed talking of laws of physics is dying out now to avoid precisely this confusion.)
Gravity is not a moral law and therefore I'm not clear what it is that you are comparing. It's apples and oranges.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
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.
There is no need for any determinism at all.
I said responsible in some way. I'm not saying necessarily that God is physically doing the punishing, but I stick by my point that it is a cop-out to hide behind the word 'consequence' in the way that you are doing.
If a law is passed and the punishment set for breaking the law, it is usually up to others to enforce the law but the one who made the law in the first place still takes responsibility for it. In such a case people are still free to choose whether they will keep or break the law.
However, you are using the word law in a completely different way when speaking of gravity. (Indeed talking of laws of physics is dying out now to avoid precisely this confusion.)
Gravity is not a moral law and therefore I'm not clear what it is that you are comparing. It's apples and oranges.
I'm not at all sure that the difference that you see between the law of gravity, and what Paul calls the law of sin and death is a real difference. For such a difference to exist, istm that it requires some volitional input into the outworkings of the second that is not present in the outworkings of the first. That is far from self-evident. Indeed, istm that it is this very point which is under debate - is moral law descriptive or prescriptive. I would argue the former.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
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.
1. The reason his death destroyed sin was that he was God. A merely sinless man could not have taken death captive. He wouldn't have the power.
2. Jesus death doesn't destroy sin because the Father sees it as such. The father sees it as such because it destroys sin.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
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.
1. The reason his death destroyed sin was that he was God. A merely sinless man could not have taken death captive. He wouldn't have the power.
2. Jesus death doesn't destroy sin because the Father sees it as such. The father sees it as such because it destroys sin.
This is really just doublethink. You obviously enjoyed Orwell.
however, The objection of Eleonore Stump (among her many) that debt forgiven is not debt repaid is at the heart of your objection. ISTM that the only reply to that is that the Bible writers do not agree. Paul in Romans creates an extensive argument "(Just as through one man ,Adam...etc.. So through one man,,Christ ..etc)
I totally agree with you that he was God BTW. It is just that the achievement in my mind of the cross event was somehow (it is a mystery) created by the chemistry between his true nature (God) and his incarnate identity) man. If he wasn't both, it wouldn't have worked.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Gravity is not a moral law and therefore I'm not clear what it is that you are comparing. It's apples and oranges.
St Clive make the point (Mere Christianity?) that what we describe as moral laws are very different from physical laws, in that phsical laws describe the way things actually behave, whereas moral laws tell us the way we ought to behave, and don't. So far, apples and oranges.
However, neither JJ nor I were using 'moral law' in that sense. I (and I think JJ) was trying to allude to a 'law' in the sense of 'the way the moral universe works,' in a direct analogy to gravity being the way the physical universe works. I freely admit to not knowing much about how that universe works, but something along the lines of 'make toxic life decisions and there will be consequences that are a direct result of those decisions' (shades of Romans 1?), leading up to 'the wages of sin is death,' in the same way that the wages of jumping off a cliff is death - it's just the way the moral universe is wired.
I hope that clarifies a bit. Of course, you're right about it being an invalid comparison in the sense of the Golden Rule or equivalent.
- 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
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm not at all sure that the difference that you see between the law of gravity, and what Paul calls the law of sin and death is a real difference. For such a difference to exist, istm that it requires some volitional input into the outworkings of the second that is not present in the outworkings of the first.
Yes I am saying something similar to that. Or rather I am saying that God is able to use natural cause and effect for his own purposes. That must be the case for grace to operate (in the opposite direction) where he prevents us from 'reaping what we sow'.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
That is far from self-evident. Indeed, istm that it is this very point which is under debate - is moral law descriptive or prescriptive. I would argue the former.
I agree it is not self-evident. But only in the way that not everyone looks at creation and self-evidently declares that there must be a God.
Whether or not one accepts an evangelical doctrine of scripture, I am assuming that, at some level at least, Christians ascribe a revelatory function to scripture.
I think part of the confusion here is happening because of the role of scripture in all this. You are accusing me of stretching the semantics of 'punishment' outside of it's legitimate range; I think you are doing the same to the word 'consequences' when translating 'punish' that is actively attributed to God in both Testaments.
quote:
Originally posted by Sanityman:
However, neither JJ nor I were using 'moral law' in that sense. I (and I think JJ) was trying to allude to a 'law' in the sense of 'the way the moral universe works,' in a direct analogy to gravity being the way the physical universe works. I freely admit to not knowing much about how that universe works, but something along the lines of 'make toxic life decisions and there will be consequences that are a direct result of those decisions' (shades of Romans 1?), leading up to 'the wages of sin is death,' in the same way that the wages of jumping off a cliff is death - it's just the way the moral universe is wired.
Yes, that is helpful Chris - I think I understand a bit better the distinction you are making.
Romans 1 is a good example. I'm agreeing with both you and JJ that God is not standing behind this sense of punishment in the same way as a headmaster wielding the cane. However, he is still actively standing behind it - it may be in a secondary sense but the verb in verse 24 is still active, and not passive.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
This is really just doublethink. You obviously enjoyed Orwell.
You lose. Thank you for playing. I will not be discussing this with you any further.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm not at all sure that the difference that you see between the law of gravity, and what Paul calls the law of sin and death is a real difference. For such a difference to exist, istm that it requires some volitional input into the outworkings of the second that is not present in the outworkings of the first.
Yes I am saying something similar to that. Or rather I am saying that God is able to use natural cause and effect for his own purposes. That must be the case for grace to operate (in the opposite direction) where he prevents us from 'reaping what we sow'.
I never said or even implied that God cannot intervene in the system, I believe that is just what He did in Christ. What I said was that the natural trajectory of sin and death (that is, the path that would be followed without His direct, volitional intervention), is towards death, just as the natural trajectory of a man falling off a building is towards a mess on the pavement.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
That is far from self-evident. Indeed, istm that it is this very point which is under debate - is moral law descriptive or prescriptive. I would argue the former.
I agree it is not self-evident. But only in the way that not everyone looks at creation and self-evidently declares that there must be a God.
Whether or not one accepts an evangelical doctrine of scripture, I am assuming that, at some level at least, Christians ascribe a revelatory function to scripture.
I think part of the confusion here is happening because of the role of scripture in all this. You are accusing me of stretching the semantics of 'punishment' outside of it's legitimate range; I think you are doing the same to the word 'consequences' when translating 'punish' that is actively attributed to God in both Testaments.
OK, I will rewrite the first sentence for clarity. "That is far from self-evident from Scripture... As you know, by and large I do have an evangelical view of scripture, that is, I believe it to be authoritative and revelatory in purpose (though I'm not an inerrantist). Furthermore, though I wouldn't want to speak for mousethief, I suspect, within the context of the general Orthodox hermaneutic framework, he has a pretty high view of scripture as well. So no-one is trying to edit or discard scripture, rather we are trying interpret scripture. It's all very well accepting that scripture is revelatory, but just what does it reveal? That is the point at issue.
On your detailed point, it sometimes seems to me that you want to retain the concept of "punishment", whilst at the same time arguing away the common meaning of the word. Sort of "it's punishment, Jim, but not as we know it."
From my point of view, it is your argument that stretches, not the biblical semantics, but the normal English useage.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Sanityman:
However, neither JJ nor I were using 'moral law' in that sense. I (and I think JJ) was trying to allude to a 'law' in the sense of 'the way the moral universe works,' in a direct analogy to gravity being the way the physical universe works. I freely admit to not knowing much about how that universe works, but something along the lines of 'make toxic life decisions and there will be consequences that are a direct result of those decisions' (shades of Romans 1?), leading up to 'the wages of sin is death,' in the same way that the wages of jumping off a cliff is death - it's just the way the moral universe is wired.
Yes, that is helpful Chris - I think I understand a bit better the distinction you are making.
Romans 1 is a good example. I'm agreeing with both you and JJ that God is not standing behind this sense of punishment in the same way as a headmaster wielding the cane. However, he is still actively standing behind it - it may be in a secondary sense but the verb in verse 24 is still active, and not passive.
Don't get that. In what sense is "to give them up" the same as "to punish"? Surely Paul is saying here that God does not intervene? ![[Confused]](confused.gif) OK, He actively does not intervene (iyswim) but it really is stretching things to describe such an event as punishment rather than consequence.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
This is really just doublethink. You obviously enjoyed Orwell.
You lose. Thank you for playing. I will not be discussing this with you any further.
I do apologise Mousethief. That was a 'smart alecky' comment in the context of this discussion.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
On your detailed point, it sometimes seems to me that you want to retain the concept of "punishment", whilst at the same time arguing away the common meaning of the word. Sort of "it's punishment, Jim, but not as we know it."
From my point of view, it is your argument that stretches, not the biblical semantics, but the normal English useage.
...
Don't get that. In what sense is "to give them up" the same as "to punish"? Surely Paul is saying here that God does not intervene? OK, He actively does not intervene (iyswim) but it really is stretching things to describe such an event as punishment rather than consequence.
Okay, I think we are getting there. (Slowly. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) )
In what sense is "to give them up" the same as "to punish"? - when you say, "Okay, eat that extra helping of ice-cream and you will be sick." And they are sick. Except you created the world where these rules apply in the first place.
Of course human analogies break down a bit at this point - we are not God, and we didn't create the world.
I still don't understand how it is possible to actively not intervene? Or rather Romans 1 does not have God standing back, it has him (subject) actively handing them over (verb) to the consequences of their actions. Or maybe we should bring back hanging - after all it is just gravity isn't it? It's not really punishment, it's just the consequence of falling with a rope round your neck?
By way of analogy it is as if you are saying the wages of sin is death. Okay you murder someone, you get hung. God sees us murder and he actively hands us over to the hang-man but because he isn't the executioner he is not punishing us.
If you can think of a better word that does not negate the many, many times God is described as punishing in both OT & NT, and still maintains God as the active subject to this then I'm all ears.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Romans 1 is a good example. I'm agreeing with both you and JJ that God is not standing behind this sense of punishment in the same way as a headmaster wielding the cane. However, he is still actively standing behind it - it may be in a secondary sense but the verb in verse 24 is still active, and not passive.
You know, I find myself a little surprised to be saying this. I'm a writer, and words are not only how I make a living, but they are my primary means of understanding and interacting with all of Creation, including other people. The fact that God used words to create all that there is makes sense to me in a really fundamental way.
But I think, maybe, perhaps, that it's possible that the reason for the difference in the way you see the atonement and the way I see the atonement is that you ponder all the subtle nuances of the words in the Bible. Is there an article here? Is that verb active or passive? Which form of what adjective is used?
Because I'm a writer, that focus on the nuances of the words seems almost misguided to me. Words change in meaning over time. Linguistic structures change in meaning. People in one town don't use words in quite the same way as people in the next town over. And when you translate words, things change all over the place.
It's not that the words aren't important -- they are. But they can't be the starting point. You have to have a context, a frame of reference, something real to attach them to so that you know what they mean.
I suppose that's why, in the Epistles, we are told not to trust our own private interpretations of Scriptures. It's just too easy to get it wrong. We need the Church, the Body of Christ, all together, working together to hear the Holy Spirit and to understand what God wants us to understand.
And when we want to understand what Jesus did for us, and how it "works," we don't start diagramming sentences. You can't diagram the Word of God. He's alive.
And that's where we start. With the Incarnation. What does it mean, that God became man? There's not some mysterious interplay in his person, no chemistry between his divine and human natures. We confess that there is no mingling, no change in his humanity or his divinity. But because he became man, we are now united with the Word of God through our human nature, in much the same way that the Father and the Spirit are united with the Word of God through their divine nature.
And because God is Life and the source of all life, death could not hold him. Because we are united to him, because he shares our nature, death can't hold us, either. "Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life!"
Think about it. He became everything that we are (except sin) so that we could become everything that he is.
And we are. That's why, when you give food and water and shelter to the poor and hungry, it's as if you gave it to Jesus -- because you did. Because of the Incarnation, because Jesus shares both our nature and the divine nature, you can't do anything to another human being without also doing it to God.
That's how the atonement -- the "at-one-ment" works -- God doesn't punish us. He doesn't pay our debts. He takes on our nature. He becomes one of us. Through the Incarnation.
That's the good news -- Immanuel. God with us.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Josephine:And because God is Life and the source of all life, death could not hold him. Because we are united to him, because he shares our nature, death can't hold us, either.
No problem with anything you wrote in that post except this little sticking point. It is certainly true that Jesus taught that out of our unity to him, he touches the world through us. The question though is about what creates that unity. Now you can say that it is his identification with us. If you do you have to consider how him becoming a man joins us to him so that we somehow partake of his Godness and in a sense, become empowered to do the works he did..as he taught would happen.
To me that is where communication breaks down if you don't have a mechanism. The PSA model does provide this key. But it is only a model. As C.S. Lewis said it is the thing itself one must grasp and experience.
The issue with what you wrote ISTM is the old chestnut, that it glosses sin. No other model but some form of penal substitution actually takes into account the seriousness of our sin to God. It is the impenetrable barrier between us and him that only Christ's blood could atone for.
The issue I have with non subscribers to this is not that they are not believers as I'm sure some here think, but that they have not grasped the extent of their salvation. Now that may seem very patronising but it is not intended that way at all. No one needs to know how an engine works to drive a car. My mother recently died and in praying a goodbye to her I became convinced in my heart she was with the Lord. Subjective I know but she, as far as I knew, never tried to understand any atonement theory. She just knew Jesus was her Lord.
--------------------
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
Given that we acknowledge that our salvation (from sin-and-death) required the God-man Jesus Christ to suffer and die, how can we be said to not take into account the seriousness of sin, including our own personal sin?
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The issue with what you wrote ISTM is the old chestnut, that it glosses sin. No other model but some form of penal substitution actually takes into account the seriousness of our sin to God.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something somewhere, but it seems to me that PSA fails entirely to take into account the seriousness of our sin. In that model, sin is such a trivial thing that God can treat it with a wink and a nudge. He declares you "Not guilty" when you and he both know you're guilty. And because of this lie, you never have to do the hard work of becoming holy. You can stay mired in sin, and it doesn't matter. Nothing has to change. You and God will just pretend that everything is all right.
In what I wrote, sin is dealt with by being destroyed. Christ takes on our nature, and the glory of his divinity burns away everything in humanity that is corruptible, everything that is evil, everything thta is broken and damaged by sin and bound by the power of death. At that point, with all the rot and brokenness cleared away, we are free to start doing good, to start becoming holy.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
And that's where we start. With the Incarnation. What does it mean, that God became man? There's not some mysterious interplay in his person, no chemistry between his divine and human natures. We confess that there is no mingling, no change in his humanity or his divinity. But because he became man, we are now united with the Word of God through our human nature, in much the same way that the Father and the Spirit are united with the Word of God through their divine nature.
Yes I do think that explains a lot about the differences between us.
I too 'start' with the incarnation - the fact of Jesus Christ, the Word become flesh. I do not worship the bible, I worship the risen Lord.
However, the question still remains - how I do I know Jesus? Well the only way, ISTM, is through words. Through the words of the bible and the words of the church. But still through words.
The only alternative is mysticism. Here I agree - I'm no mystic. Indeed I'm not sure how your comments fit in a bulletin board like the ship - what else do we have to communicate with here apart from words?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
We can only communicate here through words. It does not follow that our only experience of God is through words.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Jamat: quote:
The issue with what you wrote ISTM is the old chestnut, that it glosses sin. No other model but some form of penal substitution actually takes into account the seriousness of our sin to God.
OK - genuinely, seriously, if that were so, how come it took Christianity until the sixteenth century (or 12th if you think that what Anselm taught can be counted PSA) to produce it?
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Jamat: quote:
The issue with what you wrote ISTM is the old chestnut, that it glosses sin. No other model but some form of penal substitution actually takes into account the seriousness of our sin to God.
OK - genuinely, seriously, if that were so, how come it took Christianity until the sixteenth century (or 12th if you think that what Anselm taught can be counted PSA) to produce it?
Simply not true!
(Paul believed it)
BTW Hope you had a great holiday. Nice to see your logo again.
--------------------
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
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
I did, actually. Thanks for that.
Sorry though. I simply don't think it's possible credibly to assert that Paul held to Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Nothing I have ever read has led me to think differently.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Welcome back Psyduck.
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
OK - genuinely, seriously, if that were so, how come it took Christianity until the sixteenth century (or 12th if you think that what Anselm taught can be counted PSA) to produce it?
I thought we had been round this several times before?
We're talking about models here. The question is how well they fit the data.
You seem to be saying that there was no such thing as gravity before Newton discovered it. Equally the same can be said about Gustav Aulen - whether CV existed (as a model) before the 20th century is virtually impossible to prove either way. All one can do is demonstrate that certain metaphors and images were used in a certain way.
Therefore I think it won't get us very far arguing whether models existed in the early church. ISTM that there is far more traction in discussing doctrines and metaphors that the early church used.
For example, when discussing PSA one key question is this - does God (personally) punish sinners? If you could demonstrate that until the 16th century the majority view of Christians would be to answer 'no' to that question then I think your point about PSA being a late invention holds water. Otherwise it is the rejection of PSA which is likely to be the recent phenomenon.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Sorry to go back to this, but RL intervenes sometimes ![[Biased]](wink.gif) quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
On your detailed point, it sometimes seems to me that you want to retain the concept of "punishment", whilst at the same time arguing away the common meaning of the word. Sort of "it's punishment, Jim, but not as we know it."
From my point of view, it is your argument that stretches, not the biblical semantics, but the normal English useage.
...
Don't get that. In what sense is "to give them up" the same as "to punish"? Surely Paul is saying here that God does not intervene? OK, He actively does not intervene (iyswim) but it really is stretching things to describe such an event as punishment rather than consequence.
Okay, I think we are getting there. (Slowly. )
Oh, not at all sure we are. I still think that you are being inconsistent. Either God has to be volitionally responsible for things that happen in His creation as a result of what we would call cause and effect, or He does not have to be responsible in this way. If He does not have to be responsible (and you seem to imply that you do not believe that, for example, tsunamis are a result of His volitional will), then why is it a cop-out when I suggest that there is a similar cause-and-effect mechanism at work in "moral" matters. After all, it seems to be a natural reading of Paul that he considered that there was some mechanism at work which linked sin to death in a very intimate and inexorable way.
ISTM that, if you apply your own logic, you could be described as "copping out" on God's responsibility for natural disaters. At this point, we are really straying into discussing theodicy rather than PSA directly,
quote:
In what sense is "to give them up" the same as "to punish"? - when you say, "Okay, eat that extra helping of ice-cream and you will be sick." And they are sick. Except you created the world where these rules apply in the first place.
Of course human analogies break down a bit at this point - we are not God, and we didn't create the world.
But you underestimate the closeness of the link that exists between sin and death. They are really the same thing in many ways. To posit a universe where the two are separate is not to posit an alternative universe, but an absurd universe. Even God cannot create a square circle.
quote:
I still don't understand how it is possible to actively not intervene? Or rather Romans 1 does not have God standing back, it has him (subject) actively handing them over (verb) to the consequences of their actions. Or maybe we should bring back hanging - after all it is just gravity isn't it? It's not really punishment, it's just the consequence of falling with a rope round your neck?
By way of analogy it is as if you are saying the wages of sin is death. Okay you murder someone, you get hung. God sees us murder and he actively hands us over to the hang-man but because he isn't the executioner he is not punishing us.
I find it incredible to believe that you have never encountered situations where a person might have intervened, but perceived that it would be counterproductive to do so at that time, which I what I would regard as active non-intervention. Your point about hanging ignores the question of volitional intent, which is really the point at issue.
quote:
If you can think of a better word that does not negate the many, many times God is described as punishing in both OT & NT, and still maintains God as the active subject to this then I'm all ears.
There are many times in the scriptures where God is seeen as actively volitional in causing, in response to sin, what we would now see as natural events. It seems Jesus was pretty keen to dismiss this sort of thinking. The question is not so much "what does the text say (important though that is) but how do we interpret what the texts says, what words do we us in translating the text, and are we, by using those words, distorting meaning.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Josephine: He declares you "Not guilty" when you and he both know you're guilty.
Well that depends which part of the elephant the blind folded man is holding.
I rather like to think that If God declares you righteous then righteous you are!
This must be true since God cannot lie or deceive by definition of his character.
Regarding sin, It's chicken and egg stuff. From where I look the amazing efficacy of the saviour's blood cleanses my sins and his cross deals with my sinfulness.
The PSA model deals with sin's seriousness through the value that God puts on that blood as the sole means of cleansing it. But while this is a bit circular, we know from the mechanisms put in place by Moses to deal with sin, how serious it is and what a barrier it forms between the creator and his creatures.
--------------------
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
quote:
Jolly Jape: how do we interpret what the texts says,
OK interpret the story of Eli's sons for me.
My interpretation is that God purposed to kill them for the way they cheapened the priesthood.
He intended to punish them personally and Eli as well for allowing the abuse.
What about the action of Phineas? he turned God's wrath away from the nation through and act of violence that pleased the Lord..because it punished sin. What is your interpretation of that?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
ISTM that, if you apply your own logic, you could be described as "copping out" on God's responsibility for natural disaters. At this point, we are really straying into discussing theodicy rather than PSA directly,
Maybe I didn't make myself clear.
I said that God does not stand behind natural disasters in the same way that he stands behind his acts of love, but I still think these terrible events must happen due to his sovereign purposes.
And yes I agree this is now theodicy, but theodicy is one of the major reasons why I accept PSA - if evil is outside of God's control then I have no reason to believe he can conquer it once and for all.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I find it incredible to believe that you have never encountered situations where a person might have intervened, but perceived that it would be counterproductive to do so at that time, which I what I would regard as active non-intervention. Your point about hanging ignores the question of volitional intent, which is really the point at issue.
Okay, active non-intervention is not the right description then - according to Romans 1 (and elsewhere) God actively hands them over - i.e. he is not non-interventionist (there's a double negative for you).
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
There are many times in the scriptures where God is seeen as actively volitional in causing, in response to sin, what we would now see as natural events. It seems Jesus was pretty keen to dismiss this sort of thinking. The question is not so much "what does the text say (important though that is) but how do we interpret what the texts says, what words do we us in translating the text, and are we, by using those words, distorting meaning.
I really don't understand why Luke 13 is so readily wheeled out at this point. I remember spurting my coffee all over my keyboard as I read Jeffrey John's Easter address on PSA a few years ago. I couldn't believe that he would try to use this passage against PSA. Jesus doesn't just say it once, he says it in verse 3 and then repeats himself in verse 5. According to Jesus the mistake in his listeners thinking was not that of linking this tragedy with God's judgment of sin, but rather to think that they weren't equally guilty and equally deserving of the same fate. How else can you make sense of verses 1 to 9 as a whole? If ever there was a proof-text for PSA I'd say Luke 13 has got to be up there in the top 10.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Psyduck:
I simply don't think it's possible credibly to assert that Paul held to Penal Substitutionary Atonement.
Well, I don't think its credible to assert that he believed any other version you care to make up.
There is quite an interesting book I found called "Pierced For Our Transgressions"(2007) by Steve Jeffery, Mike Ovey and Andrew Sach that might conceivably challenge your assumptions.
[ 28. August 2010, 04:34: 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
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Josephine: He declares you "Not guilty" when you and he both know you're guilty.
Well that depends which part of the elephant the blind folded man is holding.
I rather like to think that If God declares you righteous then righteous you are!
This must be true since God cannot lie or deceive by definition of his character.
Jamat, if God were to declare a fish to be a fox, that wouldn't make the fish a fox. If God were to declare a circle to be a square, the circle would still be a circle. God spoke, and said "Let there be light," and there was light. But he never said, "Light is granite" or "volcanoes are vegetables."
You want God to play Let's Pretend. I don't think God plays Let's Pretend. I don't think he would call you righteous, if you were not righteous, any more than he would call a volcano a vegetable.
You would like to believe that he would, and that his pretense would make it so. I understand why you would like to believe that. What I don't understand is why you think that your belief is the only one that takes into account the seriousness of sin.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Josephine: He declares you "Not guilty" when you and he both know you're guilty.
Well that depends which part of the elephant the blind folded man is holding.
I rather like to think that If God declares you righteous then righteous you are!
This must be true since God cannot lie or deceive by definition of his character.
Jamat, if God were to declare a fish to be a fox, that wouldn't make the fish a fox. If God were to declare a circle to be a square, the circle would still be a circle. God spoke, and said "Let there be light," and there was light. But he never said, "Light is granite" or "volcanoes are vegetables."
You want God to play Let's Pretend. I don't think God plays Let's Pretend. I don't think he would call you righteous, if you were not righteous, any more than he would call a volcano a vegetable.
You would like to believe that he would, and that his pretense would make it so. I understand why you would like to believe that. What I don't understand is why you think that your belief is the only one that takes into account the seriousness of sin.
Well, I don't quite get your logic here Josephine. I think that on the basis of the fact that God declares you righteous, not by means of your own virtue, which will always be insufficient, but on the basis of the fact that he sees Christ's righteousness as imputed to you, then that righteousness is genuine.
Paul states as much in Romans 3:22 "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe.." and also suggests it in Gal 2;29 "If any be in Christ he is a new creation."
It is rehashing old ground from the CV thread but the 'sin' issue probably comes down to the disagreement Evos like me who follow the Augustinian line on the fall, would have with Orthodoxen theology.
IMV, sin, as imputed to the human race through Adam and Eve,is a major problem for God's desire for reconciliation with humankind.
This is seen clearly in the hoops required by Mosaic law if worship was to be acceptable. Christ is the solution to this problem in that he satisfies the requirements of both God's love and justice as detailed elsewhere.
Thus, IMV, the seriousness of sin required that the blood of a perfect sacrifice be shed and that the righteousness thereby secured should be imparted to humans who accept it by faith. This is detailed by Peter when he says we were: "redeemed with the precious blood of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ." (1 Pet 1:19) and also, in much detail by the writer to the Hebrews.
This is not to say that I think everyone who doesn't see things like I do is in trouble with their salvation only that they don't 'get' its proper basis. Above, I mentioned my Mum who recently died who was RC all her life and I don't think would ever have agreed with me over this issue. Yet she knew the Lord in a powerful way. So what can I say? I certainly don't claim to know everything.
--------------------
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
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Thus, IMV, the seriousness of sin required that the blood of a perfect sacrifice be shed and that the righteousness thereby secured should be imparted to humans who accept it by faith.
So, do you think righteousness is a thing-in-itself? It sounds as though you do. It sounds like you think righteousness is something that exists independently of the person who is righteous. Like it's something that you can get, or save, or give away. Like it's a substance, and if you have that substance, that's what makes you righteous.
So Jesus's sacrifice bought a bunch of righteousness, and he gives that righteousness to people who will accept it. And then, as you say, they really are righteous, because the righteousness he gave them is real righteousness. He wouldn't give them a fake, after all.
Is that what you mean? If so, then I know why it doesn't make any sense to me. As I understand it, righteousness is not a thing-in-itself.
Let's take a different word, one that's not so loaded. Kindness. Having kindness isn't what makes you kind. There's no such thing as kindness in that sense. It doesn't exist as something you can have. Rather, if you're kind, it's because you do kind things. We apply the word to you because it describes the things you do. It's doing kind things that makes you a kind person.
It would make no sense at all for me to say that you take candy away from babies, and kick puppies, and make old women cry, but you are kind because someone else, who was indeed very kind, imparted some of his kindness to you. Kindness doesn't work that way. You're kind if and only if you consistently behave in a kind way.
It's the same thing with righteousness. Righteousness isn't something that someone can give you. You're righteous if and only if you consistently behave in a righteous way.
At least, that's the way I understand it. But if you see righteousness as a thing-in-itself, you'd naturally understand it differently.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Well it, 'righteousness', is an abstract noun coined really to explain the way God sees a Christian. I suppose, like any abstraction, (faith is another one,) that to say it is a 'thing,' pulls it from the realm of the abstract to some degree.
If we do this we somehow forget we are talking about a model and the thing itself cannot really be contained in language. The idea of righteousness seems to derive from the Mosaic law and the Psalms. In the first instance it describes an aspect of God's nature I think.
But I do see your issue.
The usual response to it is to see righteousness as both something conferred (indeed, a thing in itself,) that we cannot earn, and also as something that must be outworked as well.
In other words it is indeed hollow to say you believe in Christ and are therefore righteous if you are an unrepentant criminal.
I think most who take this line would see that as old fashioned hypocritical denial.
Being a believer in Christ though, means that you have the Holy Spirit indwelling you and the expectation is that one, albeit slowly, gradually brings an outworked righteousness into line with that imputed by one's faith in Christ as Saviour.
IOW, you have a righteousness imputed (KJV word) that you spend a lifetime actually coming to experience or outwork with lots of failures and hissy fits along the way.
To call it a thing like kindness though is not always apples with apples. Kindness is certainly an action of both God and man and I suppose I could act kindly and righteously towards you as well, but there is a further dimension of meaning when something becomes a way to describe God.
Righteousness as I am using it pertains to the way God views us so though both are abstract conceptualisations, they can be quite dissimilar depending on the use one makes of them.
--------------------
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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
You're kind if and only if you consistently behave in a kind way.
It's the same thing with righteousness. Righteousness isn't something that someone can give you. You're righteous if and only if you consistently behave in a righteous way.
I think that this is one of the core issues here.
I agree with you, but PSA hangs on the assumption that righteousness can be transferred from one person to another.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
It's the same thing with righteousness. Righteousness isn't something that someone can give you. You're righteous if and only if you consistently behave in a righteous way.
I don't have any problems with your logic here but I cannot square it with Romans 4. I realise that Romans is hotly disputed but I don't think you have to subscribe to a traditional Protestant position (Old Pauline Perspective) to say that you seem to be directly contradicting the apostle here.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
Johnny, Paul is, in this passage, talking about the controversy between those who thought the Gentiles had to keep the Jewish law, and those (like Paul) who felt it unnecessary. He was talking about righteousness in the limited sense of keeping the Jewish law. He was making it clear that Gentile believers would be accepted by God, not because they kept the Jewish law, but because they trusted God. That's why the example of Abraham was so important -- he trusted God, and was accepted by God, before he was ever circumcised. In the same way, Paul argues, we can trust God, and be accepted by God, without circumcision (and by extension, without keeping the rest of the Jewish law).
In other words, there are two ways to be righteous in this sense of the word. One is to keep the Jewish law. The other is to trust God to keep you.
Maybe that's the only sense in which you ever mean the word, like the way some people use the word "salvation" only in the sense of "forgiveness of sins." I have a different understanding of those words. That sometimes makes communication problematic -- we find that we weren't really agreeing, or disagreeing, at all, but rather that we were talking about different things entirely. Perhaps that's the case here.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well it, 'righteousness', is an abstract noun coined really to explain the way God sees a Christian.
No it's not. Even the Greek word dikaiosune was used to mean "righteousness" by such writers as Theognis (6th century BCE) and Herodotus (5th century BCE). And the Hebrew equivalent(s) (which I can't remember) were also used long before the word was used by Christians.
Righteousness is a property. It's what righteous things have in common. Just as redness is what red things have in common, and Left-handedness is what left-handed people have in common. It is not a thing. It is, if anything, a shorthand way of talking about being righteous. Making it into a thing that can be transferred is Platonism, not Christianity.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
It also translates as 'justice' - and justice is something you DO.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
In other words, there are two ways to be righteous in this sense of the word. One is to keep the Jewish law. The other is to trust God to keep you.
Yes, and the analogy the Apostle uses in Romans 4 is of wages being paid / given. He applies that directly to righteousness. This righteousness is like money which can be given to your account; only you can't earn it, it is a gift received by faith. MT may says this kind of talk is Platonic, maybe it is, the point is it is what Paul says.
I just don't get where you are going with this. You appear to one moment concede that righteousness can be used in this way, only then to say it can't.
AFAICS either Paul is correct or you and MT are correct but I can't see the remotest glimmer of reconciliation.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I just don't get where you are going with this. You appear to one moment concede that righteousness can be used in this way, only then to say it can't.
I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. I'll try again. But before I do, a question: Have you read Studies in Words by C.S. Lewis?
Righteousness, of course, can mean a lot of different things. And what it means to us now is not necessarily the same thing that it meant to Paul, or to the people he was arguing with.
One possible meaning of righteousness is "keeping the Mosaic law in all its points." I believe that's the meaning that Paul was using in Romans 3 and 4.
But "keeping the Mosaic law in all it's points" is not the only meaning of righteousness, and I don't think it's the most common or the most important meaning today.
It probably was the most common meaning among the Jews that Paul was talking to, though, so we have to understand their point of view to understand Romans 3 and 4.
They understood righteousness to mean "keeping the Law." The Jewish Christians believed that Christians had to be righteous, in this particular sense. That's why they wanted Gentile Christians to be circumcised. There was no other way, they thought, for them to be righteous. Paul said there was no need for the Gentile Christians to be circumcised, because trusting God counts as righteousness.
You'll notice what Paul does NOT say. He does not say that trusting God makes you righteous. He said that if you trust God, it counts the same as being righteous.
And I think that would have made perfectly good sense to the Jewish Christians who were arguing that Gentile Christians had to keep the Law. For example, two doves count the same as a lamb for an offering for a firstborn child. That doesn't mean that two doves are the same thing as a lamb. Rather, under the Law, God would accept either two doves or a lamb. They counted the same.
So keeping the Law is righteousness, and trusting God counts as righteousness.
But that's not the only meaning of righteousness, and I doubt it's the first meaning that comes to mind for most Christians today. We would define righteousness as virtue or moral excellence.
It's righteousness in that sense that God doesn't just assign to someone. You can't be virtuous if you are in fact greedy, grasping, angry, lustful, slothful, and hateful. If by righteousness, you mean virtue or moral excellence, then you are only righteous if you are humble, generous, kind, and so on. Because that's what the word, in this sense, means.
So, yes, God can and does count you as being righteous simply because you trust him, if what you mean by righteousness is keeping the Law.
But God does not count you as being righteous simply because you trust him, if what you mean by righteousness is virtue and moral excellence. If you want to be virtuous, you have to do the hard work of being virtuous.
--------------------
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
Thanks for the clarification Josephine now I think I understand you more.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
But God does not count you as being righteous simply because you trust him, if what you mean by righteousness is virtue and moral excellence. If you want to be virtuous, you have to do the hard work of being virtuous.
But this point doesn't follow from what you've said. You've argued that Paul's use of righteousness is very nuanced and then claimed that you can clearly differentiate between the two useages of 'righteousness'.
It is simply not that clear cut. If we then add passages like this one (below), Paul seems to mix up the uses.
quote:
If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.
Philippians 3: 4-6
Paul does sometimes use obedience to the Torah as a mark of moral excellence, as righteousness. And then elsewhere (e.g. Romans 4) he uses the same word for righteousness when talking about this being given as a gift to believers in Christ.
I'm not disagreeing that the word righteousness can be used in these two different senses just that the distinction is no way as neat as you are making out.
[ 30. August 2010, 05:37: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well it, 'righteousness', is an abstract noun coined really to explain the way God sees a Christian.
No it's not. Even the Greek word dikaiosune was used to mean "righteousness" by such writers as Theognis (6th century BCE) and Herodotus (5th century BCE). And the Hebrew equivalent(s) (which I can't remember) were also used long before the word was used by Christians.
Righteousness is a property. It's what righteous things have in common. Just as redness is what red things have in common, and Left-handedness is what left-handed people have in common. It is not a thing. It is, if anything, a shorthand way of talking about being righteous. Making it into a thing that can be transferred is Platonism, not Christianity.
Thank you MT, for the etymology. I didn't know that.
I certainly understand that righteousness is a property. Really this seems to be straining at gnats though. A property is, in this case, a thing conferred by God upon believers in the Christ. It is nonetheless an abstraction, a semantic term that signals a reality beyond semantics. Justice, Leo, is a similar property as far as I can see. It too can be a noun when upheld as an ideal.
However,regarding the Pauline use of the term,Josephine, even if denoting the proper keeping of the Mosaic law, Paul's whole argument here and elsewhere is that faith in Christ confers that self same quality since Christ has all that righteousness inherent in himself since he kept the law perfectly.
--------------------
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
quote:
Josephine:You'll notice what Paul does NOT say. He does not say that trusting God makes you righteous. He said that if you trust God, it counts the same as being righteous
When Paul refers to Abraham's faith being counted to him as righteousness, does not this analogy imply the very thing you are denying? (Ro 4:5,11,22.) It is Paul's point that this righteousness conferred by faith, in fact existed before the law did.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think it would help if we defined Jamat's use of the term 'righteousness' as a kind of 'righteous status' or 'righteous standing' - which is, of course, the old, 'forensic' understanding of these issues in the Reformed tradition.
Through the merits of Christ, God confers a status of righteousness upon you which you have not earned by your own efforts. You are justified in his sight - 'just-as-if-I'd-never-sinned.'
But of course, as former Protestant Christians, MT and Josephine will be well aware of that.
Along with Jamat and Johnny S, I still feel, deep down, that there is merit in the Reformed position but that it too easily becomes a 'get-out-of-jail-free-card' or the kind of dumbed-down 'legal fiction' that its critics accuse it of.
I agree with Josephine that 'righteousness', like 'kindness', isn't an abstract noun or a substance - but a 'state of righteousness' is. I suppose it's similar to what RCs would call a 'state of grace'.
Of course, the different takes on 'original sin' adopted by the Orthodox and the Reformed tradition (from which Johnny's and Jamat's evangelicalism derives) means that we are necessarily going to be talking past each other on this one.
I'm no scholar in these matters but I've heard it said by some who've studied these things that the 'Old Perspective' on Paul's soteriology as expressed in his epistles would have appalled the apostle himself. That notions of imputed righteousness and a forensic, 'legal-fiction' justification weren't at all what he was about.
I've always read Paul that way, but then, that was in a context that was accustomed to doing so. I'd be interested if someone could show me an alternative way to read it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It also translates as 'justice' - and justice is something you DO.
Good point. PSA has warped the word "righteousness" into a state where we are considered righteous even though we are not.
The logic, of course, is that none are truly righteous but God.
The same logic applies to "just" - that we are considered "just" and our acts "justice" even though they are not. That's "justification."
I think that people intuitively see the logical trap but can't get out of it. Only God is righteous, only God is just. So, they wonder, how do we get some of that?
I don't know why the answer "God has given you the freedom to behave justly if you so choose" is not the easiest one to grasp.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've always read Paul that way, but then, that was in a context that was accustomed to doing so. I'd be interested if someone could show me an alternative way to read it.
Actually I'm not advocating the 'Old Perspective'. I'm just not completely convinced by the 'New Perspective'. I'd highly recommend Michael Bird on it - google him, he'd give you a comprehensive reading list!
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
You've argued that Paul's use of righteousness is very nuanced and then claimed that you can clearly differentiate between the two useages of 'righteousness'.
It is simply not that clear cut. If we then add passages like this one (below), Paul seems to mix up the uses.
quote:
If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.
Philippians 3: 4-6
I think it's clear here that he's talking about righteousness as a synonym for keeping the Law. He's repeating himself to make a point. He is emphasizing that he is at least as good as, if not better than, any other Jew, as the Jews would have counted it.
I would agree that Paul sometimes equivocates on the word righteousness. That happens when you've got one word with two meanings. That's why rhetorical equivocation is always something you watch for in any kind of argument or debate. (To be clear, I'm using equivocation in the technical sense of using one word to mean two different things in the course of the same argument.)
But I do think it's fairly clear, most of the time, which sense of righteousness Paul is using.
And if all JohnnyS and Jamat mean by righteousness means "being acceptable to God in the same way that someone who keeps the Jewish law is acceptable to God," and nothing else, then I'll concede that righteousness, this sort of righteousness, is conferred by God on the basis of our trust in him. You don't have to do anything else to be righteous in this sense.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Josephine:You'll notice what Paul does NOT say. He does not say that trusting God makes you righteous. He said that if you trust God, it counts the same as being righteous
When Paul refers to Abraham's faith being counted to him as righteousness, does not this analogy imply the very thing you are denying? (Ro 4:5,11,22.) It is Paul's point that this righteousness conferred by faith, in fact existed before the law did.
Okay, let's back up a bit.
I'm saying that righteousness means two different things. Let's call the first one R1 and the second one R2.
The Jews that Paul was arguing with were most concerned about R1. For them, "R1 = that which is necessary to be pleasing to God." They figured God himself had told them what to do to achieve R1: they just had to keep all 600+ laws that God had given them. That's what Paul is talking about in Romans 3 and 4, and in the bit of Philippians quoted above.
And that's what the Jews Paul was arguing with were talking about. They were arguing that Gentile Christians had to be circumcised. Paul argued that Gentile Christians did NOT have to be circumcised. For his fellow Jewish Christians to accept that, he had to tell them how the Gentile Christians could have R1 without being circumcised.
What Paul told them is that there is a second way to achieve R1: they could simply trust God. Right off the bat, they'd have said "No way." So Paul pointed out exactly what you just said: R1 existed before the Law and without the Law. They knew that, because they knew that God had counted Abraham as being R1. He used Abraham as his proof that God could accept the Gentile Christians without circumcision.
It's exactly the same argument that people who think that baptism isn't necessary make about the thief on the cross. If someone says that baptism is necessary for Christians, someone else will immediately point to the thief on the cross, and note that Jesus accepted him, and said he'd be with him in Paradise that very day. Clearly, then, baptism is NOT necessary.
That's the argument Paul was making: To be accepted by God, you don't have to be circumcised, because Abraham was accepted by God before he was circumcised.
I think most people, when talking about righteousness today, are not talking about R1. They're talking about R2. R2 has nothing at all to do with circumcision. It has nothing at all to do with the Jewish law. It is not what Paul was talking about.
And R2 is not bestowed on us by God. Rather, as Freddy says, God frees us from sin and makes us able to do the things that are R2.
If JohnnyS and Jamat say that they're only talking about R1, then I will apologize for totally misunderstanding them. It's quite possible that's the case.
(Gamaliel, I'll have to admit that, even back when I was a Protestant, the idea that God made you righteous by calling you righteous never made sense to me. I accepted it, but I was, I think, more tolerant of cognitive dissonance then than I am now.)
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I think it's clear here that he's talking about righteousness as a synonym for keeping the Law. He's repeating himself to make a point. He is emphasizing that he is at least as good as, if not better than, any other Jew, as the Jews would have counted it.
Counted what? Morally righteous that is. Paul is saying that the way Jews measured moral righteousness was their adherence to the Law. He kept the Law and so by their standards he was morally righteous too.
You are even starting to fall into this use of language yourself when you say that he was 'as good as' - good, another 'moral' word.
Your R1 / R2 distinction is there, but it is not as clear cut as you make it. It is quite possible for Paul to be using both at the same time.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
That's the argument Paul was making: To be accepted by God, you don't have to be circumcised, because Abraham was accepted by God before he was circumcised.
Yes that is true, but what has happened to the 600+ laws that you had to keep to be 'righteous'?
Again, you are right in critiquing the traditional Protestant view but you haven't done nearly enough to overturn it.
(Right, time for bed.)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
You are even starting to fall into this use of language yourself when you say that he was 'as good as' - good, another 'moral' word.
Negatory. I can say that my wife's cheesecake is "as good as" my mother used to make. That's not moral. I can say that non-moral righteousness (following the law) is "as good as" some other kind of non-moral righteousness. It means as "good" on the relevant scale. Not necessarily morally good.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
To be fair, Josephine, I think the Protestant view isn't simply that God declares us righteous - ie. calls something that isn't so as though it were so - rather, it's that he provides us the means to become what he has declared us to be - ie. given us new birth through his Holy Spirit.
Through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit he transforms us from the inside, as it were, from one degree of glory to another.
The mileage varies on how the various Protestant traditions understand this but there is some notion of being 'in Christ' and sharing his resurrection life etc - particularly in the more Wesleyan traditions.
It's rather a caricature of Protestantism, I feel, to write it all off as some kind of 'legal fiction' - although I think that critique does hold water in some cases.
I agree that it can be used as a cop-out, some kind of easy-believism, get-out-of-hell-free card. Which is one of the things that Bonhoeffer was exercised about, of course.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I remember back when I was a protestant the discussions/arguments about imparted versus imputed righteousness. So it's certainly not true that all protestants believe in imputed righteousness. But I can testify that some do, and treat subsequent sanctification as something of a footnote.
Which is another thing you could criticize certain forms of Protestantism for: the idea that what's really important is getting out of Hell, more so than becoming more like God. Sometimes this is not stated that flatly, but it forms an underpinning of all theological discourse (for some).
But, being Orthodox, I would say that.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Not necessarily morally good.
Thanks for arguing my point MT. The 'necessarily' gives it away.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
