|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: PSA and Christian Identities
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Call me Numpty: quote:
Yes, but that verse doesn't go into how the world might be saved through him. You have to elsewhere for that. Remember: never read a bible verse. Jesus was sent into the world to save it. PSA explains how.
D'you know, I wish you'd posted that on the other PSA thread - the "Atonement - only one" thread. ISTM that what you are saying is that the Bible on its own is insufficient for an understanding of doctrine. You have to take verses out of the Bible, assemble them as a doctrine, then read them back in. And the doctrine is PSA.
In all seriousness, don't you think that that's an assertion that the significance of PSA is that it's the one approved, comprehensive way of understanding what God is doing in Jesus Christ? Is that what it means for you?
And BTW - "Remember: never read a Bible verse"! How condescending is that? I mean, seriously, doesn't it sound to you as though your post is saying "I/we have the key to understanding how the Bible works and what it says, and BTW you don't?"
In the interests of furthering the discussion here, can you not see that this is how a PSA stance is experienced by other Christians? "We're the real Christians, and you aren't real ones at all"? Isn't that one very practical - and divisive - way in which PSA contributes to a Christian identity?
I think you are on shaky ground accusing anyone else of condescension.
If someone is convinced that there is scriptural evidence that Christ died as a substitue for a lost humanity who would otherwise have had to die, what right have you to cry foul because you disagree?
--------------------
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
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Call me Numpty: quote:
Yes, but that verse doesn't go into how the world might be saved through him. You have to elsewhere for that. Remember: never read a bible verse. Jesus was sent into the world to save it. PSA explains how.
D'you know, I wish you'd posted that on the other PSA thread - the "Atonement - only one" thread. ISTM that what you are saying is that the Bible on its own is insufficient for an understanding of doctrine. You have to take verses out of the Bible, assemble them as a doctrine, then read them back in. And the doctrine is PSA.
That's a bit of caricature of systematic theology, but essentially that is what I'm saying, yes. I'm saying that you can't build entire around theology one verse, like you tried to do with the one you quoted earlier. The doctrine of the Trinity being the preeminent example of what I'm trying to say.
quote:
In all seriousness, don't you think that that's an assertion that the significance of PSA is that it's the one approved, comprehensive way of understanding what God is doing in Jesus Christ? Is that what it means for you?
I didn't say that either, but I do think that it is the main and indispensable way of theologising the atonement though. Of course the cross can be understood in terms of victory and expiation, the bible contains those truths too.
quote:
And BTW - "Remember: never read a Bible verse"! How condescending is that? I mean, seriously, doesn't it sound to you as though your post is saying "I/we have the key to understanding how the Bible works and what it says, and BTW you don't?"
No, I'm saying that good theology is contextual. You shouldn't just find a "non-wrath text" a build a theology around it.
quote:
In the interests of furthering the discussion here, can you not see that this is how a PSA stance is experienced by other Christians? "We're the real Christians, and you aren't real ones at all"? Isn't that one very practical - and divisive - way in which PSA contributes to a Christian identity?
I could say the same thing. In fact, you're one using language of 'rejection' and 'sub-Christian' and arrogant and so on. That seems to me to be a much more aggressive and divisive stance than the one I'm taking.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Not really. PSA simply says that those two things are not mutually exclusive and that dividing them does violence to one's theology because it constitutes an attempt the censor one of the divine attributes to which scripture bears more than sufficient witness.
In this respect I'd say that PSA is more doctrinal because it engages with the more difficult texts of scripture in humility, whereas the no-wrath approach is rooted in an a priori 'sense' that God just can't be angry even though the bible says that he can be.
I don't think God can be angry with those s/he loves so deeply - but I do think s/he can be hurt by us.
This view of God works well in middle England where everyone is 'nice', but it doesn't work in places like Serbia and Northern Iraq and parts of South London. These are violent places where tragedy happens on a daily basis. In these places PSA offers hope and alternative to human vengeance. Try telling someone whose child has been stabbed to death in a local park that God isn't angry about it, he's just sad. That will not help them overcome the impetus for vengeance, but PSA will and does. In other words, PSA is pastorally powerful when people are experiencing the deepest possible pain and loss at the hands of other people.
quote:
It is understandable to attribute anger to God, as many Biblical writers did - but I think that's putting onto God how WE would feel about situations.
I won't comment about this other than to say that I find it peculiar that you quote Jesus on forgiveness (which is the bible) as if his words carry some weight, but if presented with Jesus' words on hell for example you'll just attribute it to anthropomorphism. The question I have is why do you weigh up the veracity of Jesus' words on the basis of how closely they fit with the worldview that you like the most and which, by and large, you've created independently of scripture?
[ 03. July 2010, 08:46: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Call me Numpty: quote:
I'm saying that you can't build entire around theology one verse, like you tried to do with the one you quoted earlier.
Actually, what I did was to bowl a verse at you that I don't see you can fit easily into the train of argument you were developing, and that I think contradicts you at a specific point in it.
As to my using the expressions "sub-Christian" and "arrogant" - I don't. The only use of "sub-Christian" is yours in that post, though leo uses "subchristian", and the only use of "arrogant" is Mousethief's - of, I think, an assumption in the OP, and therefore directed at me. I say that I reject PSA - do you think that that is aggressive or arrogant?
BTW, it's easy to check on usages even on a long thread - you just go to "printer-friendly" view, and use "Find" on that.
One of the things that I seem to note in some - only some - PSA advocates' posts is a distinct tendency to take an attack on PSA very personally, coupled with an unwillingness or inability to comprehend that the specification of PSA as central to Christianity is something that other Christians find personally threatening and aggressive.
Is that maybe why PSA threads spiral off into the old, undecidable territory of mutually exclusive exegesis of standard contested verses? Because that isn't where the problem actually lies?
But it's the assymetry I find really significant. ISTM that one side is saying "PSA is no way to do theology" but the other is saying, effectively, "PSA is a touchstone of what real Christianity is".
--------------------
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
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Psyduck, your tone is very adversarial, and I can't work out why. If I've said something provocative or hurtful please show me what it is so that I can apologise. However, saying that you don't just have reservations about PSA but have arrived at a settled decision to reject it makes it very difficult to understand why your want to talk about it, or why I should take that as an outright rejection of my Christian Identity.
[ 03. July 2010, 10:08: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Numpty said -
This view of God works well in middle England where everyone is 'nice', but it doesn't work in places like Serbia and Northern Iraq and parts of South London. These are violent places where tragedy happens on a daily basis. In these places PSA offers hope and alternative to human vengeance. Try telling someone whose child has been stabbed to death in a local park that God isn't angry about it, he's just sad.
I was brought up in South Africa in the 60s where my Dad was a minister in Soweto, I now spend time working on the Kibera in Kenya - so I am not as closeted as you seem to imply.
I don't see any way that this God of wrath you portray would help my friends there.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
I'm talking about a God who is loving and wrathful, not just wrathful and not just 'loving'. I use inverted commas there because I simply fail to see how you can conceive of God who is loving if atrocities just make him feel sad as he watches impotently from the side-lines of the universe while waiting for the day when can just let everyone off without any meaningful reference to the death of his one and only Son.
[ 03. July 2010, 10:15: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I didn't say sad, I said hurt.
This pain is no small thing imo.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I didn't say sad, I said hurt.
This pain is no small thing imo.
Nor I. I'd say the eternal response of God to injustice is anger, not just hurt. God's compassion is connected to the pain he feels for the oppressed. God's wrath is connected to the justice he will exact for the oppressed.
[ 03. July 2010, 10:27: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
People don't opress others out of nowhere - there is always a history to it - often going round in cycles.
That is the power of the cross - it breaks the cycle.
Jesus absorbed the pain and didn't hurt back - he forgave his enemies. Jesus words in life and on the cross teach us to do the same imo.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Jesus didn't just absorb the pain, be 'absorbed' the sin that caused that pain in a vicarious sacrifice that propitiated the wrath of God against that sin which Christ willingly absorbed.
How else would 2 Corinthians 5:21 and 1 Peter 2:24 mean anything? And how else would 1 John 4:10 say anything consistently meaningful about love?
quote:
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Cor. 5:21
quote:
He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. 1 Peter 2:24
quote:
In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 1 John 4:10
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Lot of Biblical quotes CMN but I fear they dont mean very much apart from sounding well.
What precisely does "made to be sin" mean?
And how is it possible to bear anothers sins in ones body?
Sin is not a "thing"; nor can it be packaged, nor can it be transferred.
What biblical definition of sin are you working with?
And how do the biblical definitions (lawlessness: missing the mark: rebellion: transgression ) apply to Jesus? In "becoming sin" did he become any of these?
And what of the essential definition that sin is "unbelief"?
This selective (Pauline) theological package might resonate with certain people for whom substitutes and scapegoats are acceptable means of getting rid of their guilt feelings.
As I say. Sounds good. Has a great pyschological impact. But does it really mean anything?
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Lot of Biblical quotes CMN but I fear they dont mean very much apart from sounding well.
What precisely does "made to be sin" mean?
And how is it possible to bear anothers sins in ones body?
Sin is not a "thing"; nor can it be packaged, nor can it be transferred.
What biblical definition of sin are you working with?
And how do the biblical definitions (lawlessness: missing the mark: rebellion: transgression ) apply to Jesus? In "becoming sin" did he become any of these?
And what of the essential definition that sin is "unbelief"?
This selective (Pauline) theological package might resonate with certain people for whom substitutes and scapegoats are acceptable means of getting rid of their guilt feelings.
As I say. Sounds good. Has a great pyschological impact. But does it really mean anything?
You do appear to have already decided the matter, based on your first paragraph. Do you really want to know, or is this just empty rhetoric?
I've no dog in the PSA fight, I'm not even entirely sure what the argument is about. But as for the Bible verses--
What precisely does "made to be sin" mean?
Scholars have been trying to unpack that one for two thousand years. It is certainly referring to some metaphysical issue, some transfer of evil between us and Christ. But being human, our direct knowledge of how metaphysical transactions work is rather limited.
And how is it possible to bear anothers sins in ones body?
Same answer. Actually, I think your difficulties turn on the definition of "sin," which you make dogmatic assertions about below.
Sin is not a "thing"; nor can it be packaged, nor can it be transferred.
And you know this how?
What biblical definition of sin are you working with?
Sin is a many-tentacled beastie, and can be seen from many different perspectives; but in this case I'd say Paul was working with a definition that addressed the phenomenon as a whole (that is, the sin of all humanity, not just one or a few) and that focused primarily on sin as an infection or corruption of human nature, rather than on the resulting sinful deeds. I see no reason why "sin" in this sense could not be a "thing" or be transferred. Again, we're talking about a metaphysical realm that we have no direct perception of, and what God chooses to reveal is bound to be couched in at least partly metaphorical language.
And how do the biblical definitions (lawlessness: missing the mark: rebellion: transgression ) apply to Jesus? In "becoming sin" did he become any of these?
Yes. But that is not the same thing as saying that he personally (that is, in his own personal nature) became lawless, missed the mark, rebelled, or transgressed. He himself committed no sin. But yes, he did "become sin" or "take on the burden" of sin.
And what of the essential definition that sin is "unbelief"?
Throw that one into the mix too. Yes, he became unbelief; no, he personally did not become an unbeliever.
This selective (Pauline) theological package might resonate with certain people for whom substitutes and scapegoats are acceptable means of getting rid of their guilt feelings.
Way to go with the kind insinuations. Thanks ever so.
As I say. Sounds good. Has a great pyschological impact. But does it really mean anything?
It meant enough to keep me from suicide at various points in my life. For whatever that's worth.
--------------------
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
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
I usually skip PSA threads, so y'all will have to forgive me if there's familiar territory that's been covered to death in other recent threads.
I think, when you're talking about doctrinal differences, it's useful to start talking, not about the difference itself, but about the assumptions or axioms that underlie the difference. When one person starts their reasoning from one set of axioms, and another person starts their reasoning from a different set of axioms, they are of course going to reason their way to an entirely different conclusion.
So I think you have to dig down to the axioms, to the things that are true by definition, that must be accepted and not proven. And it seems to me that the axioms of the people that believe in PSA -- things that don't have to be proven, but are just assumed as starting points -- are these:
1) The only accurate source of information about God is the Bible.
2) God is by nature just; it is impossible for him to act in a way that is not just.
3) Justice by definition means giving people what they deserve: people who do good deserve to be rewarded, and people who do evil deserve to be punished.
4) All people do evil.
5) God saves some people.
The problem is that, if you accept axioms 1 through 4, then axiom 5 is impossible. Logically, either one of the preceding axioms is wrong, or there's some other way to square the circle.
And that, it seems to me, is what PSA is. It's a theory -- perhaps the only theory -- that squares the circle, that reconciles the axioms, that allows them all to be true at the same time.
I think people always react badly to having their fundamental axioms challenged. Those who accept PSA accept it because they're working from a set of axioms that requires it. Those of us who reject PSA reject it because we're working from a different set of axioms.
I think, when you boil it all down to the absolute core of the dispute, it's really about justice. I think the PSA-ers consider justice to be a true good in and of itself. Therefore, if you say that God is not just, you are saying that God is not good. And you can see why that would make people who love God angry.
At least some non-PSA-ers (that would be me) consider justice to be what you might call an intermediate good. It's a step in the right direction, and better than the alternative, but it's certainly not something that is good in and of itself. Therefore, if you say that God is just, you are saying that God is not good. And you can see why that would make people who love God angry.
--------------------
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
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I find Josephine's post incredible. One example.
Josephine wrote
"Justice by definition means giving people what they deserve: people who do good deserve to be rewarded, and people who do evil deserve to be punished."
But the Christian gospel (and Jesus) go way beyond that. Consider the parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard (Matt 20). The whole point of the parable is that God does NOT give us what we deserve but what we need.
And what we need is mercy, not justice.
The idea that this axiom of Josephine's must be accepted without any kind of proof is risible.
As far as I am aware Jesus taught that forgiveness from God is dependant upon our genuine repentance. He said God was always willing to forgive.
And that because it is His nature. (cf the communion prayer "whose nature is always to have mercy")
Methinks its about time we paid a bit more attention to what Jesus himself taught rather than the tortuous theological arguments of Paul.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Not really. PSA simply says that those two things are not mutually exclusive and that dividing them does violence to one's theology because it constitutes an attempt the censor one of the divine attributes to which scripture bears more than sufficient witness.
In this respect I'd say that PSA is more doctrinal because it engages with the more difficult texts of scripture in humility, whereas the no-wrath approach is rooted in an a priori 'sense' that God just can't be angry even though the bible says that he can be.
The problem is that this approach sets up irreconcilable contradictions.
Certainly the Bible bears ample witness to God's wrath.. The trouble is that if you take all of those statements at face value you end up in an impossible situation.
The idea, for example, that Moses persuaded God to relent from His desire to wipe out Israel by saying "What would people think of You if You did that?" is completely ludicrous. At least, to my way of thinking.
I prefer an approach that understands these expressions of anger as appearances that are similar to a child's understanding of parental concern as anger. They are like the view of a convicted criminal that the judge is somehow his personal enemy exacting retribution. Neither the parent nor the judge have anything like anger or retribution in mind, they are simply working to maintain order.
The truth is that evil is its own punishment. Foolish and wicked actions have inherent consequences. These consequences are called "God's wrath" and "God's judgment" but this is only because people to too limited to see them for what they are.
So the Bible consistently speaks as if this is the way it really is. This affirms that God is in fact the ruler of the universe, and it works just fine for children and uneducated people. But the thoughtful person will see the contradiction between God's love and this kind of judgment.
--------------------
"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
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
An apology in advance.
It appears that the Josephine post I challenged is one in which she attributes axioms to PSA believers but doesnt necessarily subscribe to herself.
In which case I am not challenging Josephine but the axioms she quotes.
Apologies.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Why am I required to take statements about God's wrath at something other than face value when I am not required to the same thing with statements about God's love? Surely such a requirement is motivated by an a priori desire for God not be wrathful despite the fact that the bible says that he is.
Following such reasoning it would be equally possible and theologically permissible for someone to say that the bible is replete with references to God's love but that doesn't actually mean that he really is loving because you shouldn't take those texts at face value.
[ 03. July 2010, 14:54: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
God's love can be experienced every day - in the world around us and in the love of others.
I see no evidence whatever of God's wrath.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
God's love can be experienced every day - in the world around us and in the love of others.
I see no evidence whatever of God's wrath.
Really? I find that quite incredible. God's passive wrath is clearly visible in the mess that humanity is making of creation. God's active wrath is clearly visible in the crucifixion and in the weekly Eucharist through which that crucifixion is remembered and God's final wrath (as Jesus and the Apostle Paul say) is being withheld for the day of judgement. The Parable of the Ten Minas being one such example.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
No way - humanity is making the mess, not God.
The Earth will be fine if we wipe ourselves out - it has been before and will be again. (For example after each ice age)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
An apology in advance.
It appears that the Josephine post I challenged is one in which she attributes axioms to PSA believers but doesnt necessarily subscribe to herself.
In which case I am not challenging Josephine but the axioms she quotes.
Apologies.
Thank you, shamwari. I think, though, that your response to my post illustrates the problem that arises when people discuss an issue where they start from differing axiomatic points. Instead of trying to understand the other person's starting point, they attack it or ridicule it. I don't think that's a particularly useful approach when you're trying to understand or to persuade.
Of course the other person's axioms are accepted without proof -- that's not risible, that's just what an axiom is. If your axioms are wrong, then your conclusions will be wrong. But telling someone, "You can't just accept that without proof!" isn't going to get you anywhere in a discussion. Exploring why they accept it, and how they handle data that seems to contradict it, is more enlightening, and I think ultimately has more chance of persuading.
--------------------
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
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Why am I required to take statements about God's wrath at something other than face value when I am not required to the same thing with statements about God's love? Surely such a requirement is motivated by an a priori desire for God not be wrathful despite the fact that the bible says that he is.
Following such reasoning it would be equally possible and theologically permissible for someone to say that the bible is replete with references to God's love but that doesn't actually mean that he really is loving because you shouldn't take those texts at face value.
Well, sure, Numpty. There's no logical reason to reconcile the differences one way or the other. It depends on what your starting point is. As I said before, it depends on what your axioms are, and what you consider true by definition.
If you consider justice (defined as punishing evil and rewarding good) as a fundamental characteristic of God, that will affect how you interpret verses about God's wrath. Likewise, if you consider love (defined as doing good to and for the other person in all cases, regardless of whether they deserve it or not) as a fundamental characteristic of God, that will affect how you interpret verses about God's wrath.
Neither one is logically superior to the other. It just has to do with the starting premises, the givens, the axioms.
--------------------
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
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
No way - humanity is making the mess, not God.
The Earth will be fine if we wipe ourselves out - it has been before and will be again. (For example after each ice age)
God has given humanity over to its own depravity for a time. One day he will call a halt to it and creation will be renewed and fully healed. In the meantime, the tension between the now and the not yet is, at least in part, a passive manifestation of God's wrath. That's what Romans 1 is all about.
[ 03. July 2010, 15:19: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Why am I required to take statements about God's wrath at something other than face value when I am not required to the same thing with statements about God's love? Surely such a requirement is motivated by an a priori desire for God not be wrathful despite the fact that the bible says that he is.
Following such reasoning it would be equally possible and theologically permissible for someone to say that the bible is replete with references to God's love but that doesn't actually mean that he really is loving because you shouldn't take those texts at face value.
Well, sure, Numpty. There's no logical reason to reconcile the differences one way or the other. It depends on what your starting point is. As I said before, it depends on what your axioms are, and what you consider true by definition.
If you consider justice (defined as punishing evil and rewarding good) as a fundamental characteristic of God, that will affect how you interpret verses about God's wrath. Likewise, if you consider love (defined as doing good to and for the other person in all cases, regardless of whether they deserve it or not) as a fundamental characteristic of God, that will affect how you interpret verses about God's wrath.
Neither one is logically superior to the other. It just has to do with the starting premises, the givens, the axioms.
It's not an axiomatic either/or option between love and wrath. If you want any axiom to hang PSA on is is this one: wrath and love as attributes of God are not antithetical. Any theology that asserts that they are will not arrive at PSA because they have an insufficiently robust theology (in the proper sense of the word) of God's attributes.
[ 03. July 2010, 15:25: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
'Creaation will be healed' sounds like a cliche to me - I can't see what it means. We may make the planet uninhabitable for ourselves - that won't spoil the planet, just our ability to live on it. The Earth has been set up wnderfully for regeneration - it's not going anywhere for a few billion years I don't imagine.
<apologies, this is a tangent I know - I'll drop it now. As Josephine says, CMN has a totally different world view from me.>
.... Boogie bows out (dis) gracefully ....
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
It's not an axiomatic either/or option between love and wrath. If you want any axiom to hang PSA on is is this one: wrath and love as attributes of God are not antithetical. Any theology that asserts that they are will not arrive at PSA because they have an insufficiently robust theology (in the proper sense of the word) of God's attributes.
If "God is wrathful" and "God is loving" are both axioms in your system, then of course they are not antithetical. That's how axioms work.
They aren't antithetical in the system I'm working in, either. But God's wrath isn't an axiom in my system. It exists, but it's not a given. And because I have a different set of axioms, I've got a feeling that God's wrath works out differently in my system than in yours.
The biggest problems with the axioms that seem to me to underlie PSA have to do with justice. I honestly believe that justice is an incomplete, partial good. It is not good in itself, but only good in comparison with lesser alternatives.
Gratitude is good. Open ingratitude is bad. But there's a place where a child who doesn't like the sweater Aunt Martha gave them for Christmas can say "Thanks" politely. That's courtesy. Courtesy is better than open ingratitude, but it's not as good as gratitude. However, when you're raising your children, you normally consider courtesy a good step on the way to what you really want, which is gratitude.
That's how I see justice. It's like courtesy. It's a good thing, but only because it's a step towards what's really good, and a step away from evil. But confusing the partial, on-my-way-to-being-better good with the real thing, and then attributing that partial good to God, seems really wrong to me.
But if I saw justice as a good-in-itself good, the same way that I see gratitude as a good-in-itself good, then I would perhaps understand the wrath of God more like you do.
Telling me that if I had a sufficiently robust theology, like yours, then I would agree with you, addresses the differences in where we end up. It doesn't address the differences in our starting points. And the differences in where we start are the differences that really matter.
--------------------
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
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
I'm not saying that your theology is weak in toto; I'm suggesting that a theology that cannot - or will not attempt to - reconcile two divine attributes (love and wrath) to which scripture so consistently testifies seems (from my perspective) to be inadequate. Now of course you'll say that I've misunderstood wrath and that it's much less severe than I think it is. To which I could suggest that you've misunderstood love and that it is much less tolerant than you thin it is. So, yes, definitions and axioms are important and should drive us back to the witness of Scripture - and not tradition, reason, or experience - for clarification.
[ 03. July 2010, 15:57: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Now of course you'll say that I've misunderstood wrath and that it's much less severe than I think it is. To which I could suggest that you've misunderstood love and that it is much less tolerant than you thin it is.
Do you think you might want to wait to see what I say and to listen to find out what I think, rather than telling me?
If you'd rather just talk to yourself, that's fine. That's one reason I usually avoid discussions of PSA -- they look more like dueling monologues than like conversations.
If you're interested in a conversation, why don't you try responding to what I said, rather construct an imaginary conversation made up of things I didn't say?
--------------------
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
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Call Me Numpty: God's active wrath is clearly visible in the crucifixion
It's not at all clear that 'God's active wrath [was] clearly visible at the crucifixion'. Much more evident was the wrath of men, especially that of the religious leaders, who accused Jesus of blasphemy and conspired with the Romans to have him done away.
God's wrath in relation to the crucifixion is the subject of Peter's sermon at Pentecost, when the apostle accused his hearers of being responsible for the event. In response to having learned that they had killed the Messiah they feared the consequences (God's wrath) and ask what they must do to be saved. (Act 2: 56-57).
ISTM, therefore, that according to Peter the crucifixion was a potential cause of God's wrath rather than being necessitated by it. But then, Peter was a simple chap who hadn't boned-upon PSA.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Call Me Numpty: God's active wrath is clearly visible in the crucifixion
It's not at all clear that 'God's active wrath [was] clearly visible at the crucifixion'.
Thank you! I was thinking that myself. As has been pointed out, what God said at the crucifixion was "forgive them." Not much wrath there.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Now of course you'll say that I've misunderstood wrath and that it's much less severe than I think it is. To which I could suggest that you've misunderstood love and that it is much less tolerant than you thin it is.
Do you think you might want to wait to see what I say and to listen to find out what I think, rather than telling me?
If you'd rather just talk to yourself, that's fine. That's one reason I usually avoid discussions of PSA -- they look more like dueling monologues than like conversations.
If you're interested in a conversation, why don't you try responding to what I said, rather construct an imaginary conversation made up of things I didn't say?
Sorry. Didn't mean to offend. Puritan rhetorical apologetics do tend to raise the ire. Of course I will listen to what you have to say, but with one caveat. You will need to justify what you say with scriptural evidence because I'm not really interested in what you think. I'm interested in what you think the bible says.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Of course I will listen to what you have to say, but with one caveat. You will need to justify what you say with scriptural evidence because I'm not really interested in what you think. I'm interested in what you think the bible says.
I'm interested in knowing what your axioms are. The givens. The starting points that you accept as true without proof, but just because they are self-evidently true, and which you use to explain, justify, or prove other things that you believe to be true. Things like a=a, or a+b=b+a.
I would guess that "Everything true about God is plainly stated in the Bible" might be one of them. I suggested upthread what other axioms I think underlie PSA -- but since those are not my axioms, and I don't hold to PSA, it's quite possible that I'm wrong.
Once we understand what each others' axioms are, I think it will be a lot easier to understand each other when we talk about what we think the Bible says.
--------------------
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
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Call Me Numpty: God's active wrath is clearly visible in the crucifixion
It's not at all clear that 'God's active wrath [was] clearly visible at the crucifixion'. Much more evident was the wrath of men, especially that of the religious leaders, who accused Jesus of blasphemy and conspired with the Romans to have him done away.
God's wrath in relation to the crucifixion is the subject of Peter's sermon at Pentecost, when the apostle accused his hearers of being responsible for the event. In response to having learned that they had killed the Messiah they feared the consequences (God's wrath) and ask what they must do to be saved. (Act 2: 56-57).
ISTM, therefore, that according to Peter the crucifixion was a potential cause of God's wrath rather than being necessitated by it. But then, Peter was a simple chap who hadn't boned-upon PSA.
22“Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— 23this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. Acts 2
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Posted by CMN
"You will need to justify what you say with scriptural evidence because I'm not really interested in what you think. I'm interested in what you think the bible says. "
Typical of the totally discourtesy way in which like-minded people think.
Can you not grant the possibility that some people may think a truth which is outside of the phraseology of the biblical record?
Else the Holy Spirit ceased to reveal anything after Revelation was completed.
Which is bollocks.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
22“Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— 23this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. Acts 2
Hmm. Looking for wrath. Hmm. Nope, don't see it. Let alone clearly.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Posted by CMN
"You will need to justify what you say with scriptural evidence because I'm not really interested in what you think. I'm interested in what you think the bible says. "
Typical of the totally discourtesy way in which like-minded people think.
Can you not grant the possibility that some people may think a truth which is outside of the phraseology of the biblical record?
Else the Holy Spirit ceased to reveal anything after Revelation was completed.
Which is bollocks.
I think it's possible to say true things in a way that accords with biblical record. I also think it's possible to say true things that do not appear in the biblical record.
I not accept that it is possible to validly assert that something is true if it is in direct contradiction to the biblical record. I do not accept that the Holy Spirit reveals anything outside of scripture that is in contradiction to the biblical record.
"Bollocks" is just your opinion, but if you can support it with scripture I'll give it my consideration.
[ 03. July 2010, 17:31: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Of course I will listen to what you have to say, but with one caveat. You will need to justify what you say with scriptural evidence because I'm not really interested in what you think. I'm interested in what you think the bible says.
I'm interested in knowing what your axioms are. The givens. The starting points that you accept as true without proof, but just because they are self-evidently true, and which you use to explain, justify, or prove other things that you believe to be true. Things like a=a, or a+b=b+a.
I would guess that "Everything true about God is plainly stated in the Bible" might be one of them. I suggested upthread what other axioms I think underlie PSA -- but since those are not my axioms, and I don't hold to PSA, it's quite possible that I'm wrong.
Once we understand what each others' axioms are, I think it will be a lot easier to understand each other when we talk about what we think the Bible says.
Have you got any scriptural evidence that the identification of axioms is the solution to theological difference? If not, then I would have to reject the methodology as an attempt to assert the ideas of man over and above the revelation that God has provided in the Scripture.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
I could not be any further from CMN's approach and remain Christian. I believe it's one of our greatest mistakes as Christians to have closed our canon of scripture in c. 120AD; I believe there was great wisdom in the record of Hebrew scriptures accumulating over centuries. This gives the OT a richness of history and of views of God which it is hard for the NT to match.
The only full revelation of God is Jesus Christ as he was, not as he is recorded in the Bible; the biblical record is necessarily partial: again, I see considerable wisdom in the fact that everything recorded in the gospels about Jesus's ministry could comfortably have happened in about 3 months. To find out the rest of the truth of Christ's incarnation, we have to become part of it, not read about it.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Just out of curiosity, Nump, what would you say is the biblical method of solving theological differences? Please give specific verses showing theological differences between well-meaning equals in particular being discussed, and also verses that show resolution.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Reformation, and particularly Puritan, thinking is by and large consciously and intentionally non-axiomatic. However, the most pertinent "axiom" to this conversation - if indeed it is one - would, I think, appear in Article 6 of the 39 Articles of Religion.
quote:
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.
However, I would also argue that Reformation thinking would hold the notion of axiomatic approach to theology with deep suspicion and would suggest that the only valid theological position regarding apparent axioms is to prove them by scripture thereby rendering them non-axiomatic.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Reformation, and particularly Puritan, thinking is by and large consciously and intentionally non-axiomatic.
Or so they think, foolishly, of themselves.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Reformation, and particularly Puritan, thinking is by and large consciously and intentionally non-axiomatic.
Or so they think, foolishly, of themselves.
You'd need to prove that assertion for me to accept it. Or is that just one of your axioms?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Prove it from the Bible? That's the only proof you accept.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Prove it from the Bible? That's the only proof you accept.
Yes, because you are making an assertion concerning the fundamental nature of theology (i.e. words about God). I would suggest that the assertion that all theology is fundamentally axiomatic would need some pretty heavyweight support for it to accepted. Otherwise it becomes a circular argument and, "All theology is axiomatic." simply becomes a self supporting axiom is exactly the same way as "Scripture is a self-interpreting document." becomes axiomatic. theonly difference being that the former axiom leaves the theologising subject without an anchor; whereas the second provides the anchor in an objective view of scripture as the ultimate rule of faith and theology.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Just out of curiosity, Nump, what would you say is the biblical method of solving theological differences? Please give specific verses showing theological differences between well-meaning equals in particular being discussed, and also verses that show resolution.
I'll take an answer to this, too, if you have one on tap.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Possibly Paul's encounter with the Berean Jews in Acts 17. quote:
10(The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. 11Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
It seems that nobility in Luke's mind is associated with a willingness to study scripture.
Or Paul challenging Peter's hypocrisy recorded in Galatians 2.
Or the deliberations of the Jerusalem Council recorded in Acts 15.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Jesus's encounter with Satan in the wilderness would be another.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Acts 15 is a wonderful example. While scripture is quoted, a lot more practical experience is referred to, and in the end they describe their decision-making process not in terms of scripture but in terms of "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us."
Taking that as our example of how to resolve theological differences, we should talk for hours about our personal experiences of God working in our lives and the lives of others, find a single bible verse that seems to kinda sorta apply, then do what seems best to us, and what we feel the Holy Spirit would like us to do.
But then that would assume we're all on the same page spiritually and theologically, all have roughly the same direct experience of the incarnate Christ, the same theological formation, the same culture, the same language. Part of which is the very issue under contention here -- our theological backgrounds and how they colour how we see theology and scripture. But no, we're not allowed to talk about that, because that's not biblical.
Hey guess what. The situation Christianity finds itself in in AD 2010 never existed in the days when the Scriptures were written. So we might need to do some digging and conversing of a sort that the Bible writers never experienced.
Nah.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
The whole book of Hebrews would be yet another. What with it being a pastoral commentary on Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
