|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: PSA and Christian Identities
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Ask Jean Valjean.
Javert isn't my theologian of choice.
--------------------
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
Jolly Jape,
You suggest that wrath is better translated indignation. What do you make of these words from Romans 2?
quote:
6(I) He will render to each one according to his works: 7to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. 9There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil...
How should these words better translated in order to avoid giving the impression that God's wrath against people who do evil involves fury resulting in tribulation and distress?
[ 08. July 2010, 06:32: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
Psyduck wrote:
quote:
Ask Jean Valjean.
Javert isn't my theologian of choice.
Being just one example of the relativism that unavoidably exists in human morality? And as moral perpectivists, what makes us qualified to decide what mitigating circumstances justify Valjean' s (or God's) seemingly immoral actions?
That's why Adam was dead in the water as soon as he chose to strike out for himself: he wasn't equipped to make the right choice. And several generations later, the level of development we've managed to achieve in our moral sense still doesn't cut it.
It's the same argument God uses in Job: "Were you there when I set up Creation?"
[ 08. July 2010, 06:44: Message edited by: footwasher ]
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Serving suggestion: read Bonhoeffer's Ethics. Then read Fletcher's Situation Ethics. Then see which of Job's comforters you can identify either of them with.
I actually agree with you that theodicy as conventionally done since Leibnitz is an impossibility. I believe that the only way to square that circle is by an incarnational atonement that basically takes Jesus Christ, and the whole of Jesus Christ as what God does to at-one the world with himself, by bearing the conditions of existence in a fallen world. PSA says there's no circle to square, and identifies God's justice with God's caprice and cruelty, simply because God is God and everything he does is, by definition, OK.
PSA is atonement for Zeus-worshippers. And it's not in the same moral universe as Job.
[ 08. July 2010, 06:58: Message edited by: Psyduck ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Call me Numpty: quote:
How should these words better translated in order to avoid giving the impression that God's wrath against people who do evil involves fury resulting in tribulation and distress?
The point isn't how to translate them. It's the importance of understanding them in the Greek. The muslims put us to shame here. They are perfectly clear that the Qur'an is an Arabic text, and needs to be read in Arabic, and if you want to be a muslim, you need to learn enough Arabic to be able to do that.
There was a baker in London in the 1650s, Christopher Hill tells us, who had memorized the whole of the Greek NT as far as Revelation chapter 8. He clearly thought it was worth doing.
We are increasingly infantilized by third-rate targums like the GNB, which reads into the text everywhere the doctrines of its translators - including PSA. It's not something we've looked at on any of these threads yet, but it might be worth asking just how many people believe that PSA is Biblical because of crappy translations of the NT that do read it in in that way.
Asking how to translate, here, is equivalent to asking how to fix, in another form of language (indeed, another language altogether) a doctrinal formulation. That's not how texts work.
--------------------
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
So the solution to the problem of PSA is elitism and islamic notions of inspiration?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
No, it's having the humility to sit on your arse, and do some really hard work. If you believe Scripture is worth 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
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
As one of the fathers of NT textual criticism , J A Bengel puts it: quote:
"Te totum applica ad textum : rem totam applica ad te."
Apply yourself to the whole text. [Then] apply the whole thing to you..."
[ 08. July 2010, 07:52: Message edited by: Psyduck ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
In fairness, Psyduck, writers like John Stott and other more nuanced and informed proponents of PSA do take full account of the whole 'Christ event' - the Incarnation etc. I would imagine that Numpty would do the same, he's smart enough not to dislocate his views on PSA from what he'd see as the apostolic testimony as a whole.
At least, that's how I read him. I'm prepared to cut him some slack on this one.
On the wrath thing, somewhere or other on the various atonement threads that have been looping around each other here for a while, Josephine suggested that none of us are saying that God cannot be angry nor that anger and indignation against sin (wrath if you like) would not be an appropriate response for the Almighty to take. But we have to be wary of anthropomorphism here, whilst at the same time being aware that, as embodied beings, we are ultimately only able to conceive of things in that way.
So, I would suggest that it is possible to interpret the verses Numpty cites as indicating that there is wrath, indignation and judgement - but that this doesn't necessarily mean that these elements are part of God's 'character' as it were ... but then we get into the whole 'essences and energies' thing.
As cuddly, fluffy ol' Gamaliel I might suggest that both Numpty and your good self are overstating the case - for and against.
But then, that's just me ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Justinian: quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
To expand on what I said to shamwari upthread,<snip>
Am I missing something, or (niceties of style and expression aside) are Justinian and Dinghy Sailor in complete agreement on this?!? ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
I believe we do agree but I'm perplexed as to why Justinian posted what he did on this thread. It seems that his beef isn't with PSA but is with the trustworthiness of the bible, based on an unrelated OT episode that he doesn't like. As far as I can make it, his logic says that there are bits of the bible he doesn't like, ergo he doesn't believe the bible and if you believe in PSA, you are willing to believe the bible and therefore believe the bits he doesn't like, ergo he doesn't like you.
I think I should take that as a backhanded compliment, and I refer all here to Barnabas's discussion on the level of messiness in theology, back on one or other of these recent threads.
Justinian, have I got that correct?
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
PSA says there's no circle to square, and identifies God's justice with God's caprice and cruelty, simply because God is God and everything he does is, by definition, OK.
PSA is atonement for Zeus-worshippers. And it's not in the same moral universe as Job.
So remind me again, PSA believers are the exclusionist ones, yes? I like your style
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
I've never made any secret of the fact that I believe PSA to be a deeply and unworkably flawed version of the Christian story.
I don't see how rejecting one particular perspective makes me "exclusionary" - presuming that you mean "exclusive."
In my book, saying that I can work with everything else, but your one particular stance is one I can't entertain, doesn't make me exclusivist or exclusionary. It might suggest that you are thin-skinned with regard to your own position, though.
--------------------
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
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
All these points favour it, and make it easy to teach and learn, but it certainly isn't the clear hingepin of scripture from any objective point of view. Which makes its totemic adherence a very strange phenomenom. Even those who are otherwise impeccable evos (such as Steve Chalke) can get in vey hot water when they argue (from scripture) that PSA is less than convincing as a biblical doctrine.
Oh JJ. How did this pass under the radar? Suffice to say here, there is plenty of Biblical evidence. Your constant apology for Isaiah 53 demonstrates that you know this, really.
But anyway, the fact is that arguments against PSA are rarely textual, but are much more like the infamous Chalke argument, or Justinian's argument on this thread: "I don't really like the God this represents, so I reject the doctrine." Unsurprisingly, to those who believe in the authority of Scripture this is an unconvincing argument.
What's more, I do find it interesting that those who reject PSA are those who are most likely to say that all of Scripture is littered with mistakes.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
I've never made any secret of the fact that I believe PSA to be a deeply and unworkably flawed version of the Christian story.
I don't see how rejecting one particular perspective makes me "exclusionary" - presuming that you mean "exclusive."
In my book, saying that I can work with everything else, but your one particular stance is one I can't entertain, doesn't make me exclusivist or exclusionary. It might suggest that you are thin-skinned with regard to your own position, though.
That's why the PSA believers on these threads are the wet fluffy liberals who can find worth in all the major atonement models - at least, I know I can and I don't remember anything to the contrary from the others. You're the one who can't cope with everything which is absolutely fine, but which I find amusingly ironic since you're the one who started the thread about exclusivity.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Hi Lep, good to hear from you again.
I'm afraid this will have to be brief, as I'm off to work now-ish.
I'm not sure I am "constantly apologising for Is 53", but I do think that it's the only text that seems to have a natural meaning in line with PSA. I'm not saying other texts cannot be interpreted in that way, but it would not be their natural meaning, it would be eisegesis. We are where we are, but I still maintain if some alien were to visit us and try to understand Christianity given only the Bible (suitably and accurately translated into alien-ese, of course), PSA is not the account they would come up with.
But, of course, we've been round this loop before. I actually think there is quite a strong textual case against PSA, which doesn't rest on arguing away bits of scripture, even though, as you know, I'm not inerrantist, though I do think that scripture is authoritative. (Actually, I suppose the first part of that sentence is the wrong way round - it's not quite true to say that the scriptural evidence is against PSA, or at least it's only true to say that by extension. It is better to say that I don't believe that scripture supports PSA, in the way that it supports, say, CV or even Abelardian ME).
Of course, just because I think there is a moral argument against PSA (and I do) doesn't preclude that there is a textual argument against it as well. I tend to use the argument that is appropriate to the situation as I see it.
--------------------
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
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
As one of the fathers of NT textual criticism , J A Bengel puts it: quote:
"Te totum applica ad textum : rem totam applica ad te."
Apply yourself to the whole text. [Then] apply the whole thing to you..."
Yes, and I know that I deserve God's wrath because I'm a sinner. And God's mercy would mean nothing to me if his wrath didn't present a very real possibility of his divine displeasure at my intransigence.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Let's get this absolutely straight, without distortions, once and for all.
Dinghy Sailor: quote:
That's why the PSA believers on these threads are the wet fluffy liberals who can find worth in all the major atonement models - at least, I know I can and I don't remember anything to the contrary from the others.
That is a deliberate distortion of what I said. I said with total consistency that I completely accept that people who assert that you can hold PSA as a theory, and hold other perspectives on the atonement on the same level as it, are saying that in good faith.
What I don't accept - and I've still seen nothing to convince me to the contrary - is that you can actually hold PSA fully, and give equal, unsubordinated place to other perspectives. I maintain that if you actually hold full PSA you can't do that, however much you think you are.
That's a perfectly respectable claim to make. You have consistently taken it personally, and done so on behalf of other people. (BTW - why do you habitually set yourself up as the spokesman and defender of other people? It happens all the time in your posts.) Any speculations I might make on why are inappropriate to a Purgatory thread.
I'm not impugning these people's integrity, or impugning their intellectual capacity. I am addressing their arguments, which do not convince me. I'm perfectly able to do that with complete respect, and ISTM that that's how it's taken. There's an agreement to differ. With everyone but you.
quote:
You're the one who can't cope with everything which is absolutely fine,
Well, all evidence to the contrary, I think the dispassionate reader of your posts would have to say
quote:
but which I find amusingly ironic since you're the one who started the thread about exclusivity.
This is a moronic post. What you are effectively saying, here and elsewhere, is that anyone who disagrees with you is being exclusive, no matter how open they are to anyone else whose arguments convince them.
You haven't convinced me. I don't accept your argumts. I haven't actually seen any arguments in your posts, just bluster, abuse and the occasional threat.
I've said it before. It's in the Purg. guidelines. If you can't stand to be challenged...
--------------------
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
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Call me Numpty: quote:
Yes, and I know that I deserve God's wrath because I'm a sinner. And God's mercy would mean nothing to me if his wrath didn't present a very real possibility of his divine displeasure at my intransigence.
And... ?
Perhaps if you completed the thought...
--------------------
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
The relationship between the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, the eschaton, the book of Joshua, and the wrath of God is a key consideration when thinking about the authority of scripture.
If God is not wrathful, then the book of Joshua really is just an exercise in Hebrew propaganda, a justification of genocide, and a clear demonstration that canonical scripture cannot be trusted.
However, if God is wrathful towards sinful people the book of Joshua becomes a trustworthy eschatological picture of God's coming wrath towards the unsaved. It becomes a picture of what is yet happen to humanity whose sins remain unforgiven through the rejection of Christ's atoning sacrifice. It becomes a picture of judgement.
[ 08. July 2010, 10:39: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Call me Numpty: quote:
Yes, and I know that I deserve God's wrath because I'm a sinner. And God's mercy would mean nothing to me if his wrath didn't present a very real possibility of his divine displeasure at my intransigence.
And... ?
Perhaps if you completed the thought...
OK, Psyduck, how would you like me to complete the thought process? And why would you like to 'complete the thought' according to your set schema? Is it because it make your theology work better? Or is it because it would benefit me in some way? Would it perhaps be because my understanding of being a forgiven sinner who deserves God's wrath by is justified freely by his grace is an inconvenience to your systematised censorship of an attribute of God's character?
[ 08. July 2010, 10:44: 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 - that's a clear, forthright statement that I can respect for its honesty and work with. It will probably come as no surprise to you that I can't accept such a line of theological reasons, but I would sincerely like to do it justice, and I'll take it away and think about it. You're owed a decent statement of why I reject 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
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Call me Numpty - well, we cross-posted there, all right. So I'm going to do the Bobby Kennedy, Cuban-Missile-Crisis thing, and assume that the first one came from you, and the second from your trigger-happy military. And since I can actually work with the first one, I'll respond to that in due course, and - respectfully - ignore the second.
[ 08. July 2010, 10:46: Message edited by: Psyduck ]
--------------------
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
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Yep CMN: the book of Joshua is an exercise in Hebrew propaganda.
But thats a loaded word. It is propaganda in the same sense that John said "these things are written in order that you might believe....."
Except that, in Joshua's case the belief system underlying his work is that God had promised this land; and that therefore all who attempted to prevent a take-over were the objects of His wrath and could be eliminated.
Hardly a Christian thing to do.
And utterly inconsistent with the God, who in Christ, taught the opposite.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Call me Numpty: quote:
The relationship between the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, the eschaton, the book of Joshua, and the wrath of God is a key consideration when thinking about the authority of scripture.
Only, surely, if you elevate the doctrine of PSA to the authoritative status of Scripture. And on what grounds would you do that? And only if you take a very particular view of the Book of Joshua, which I would surmise has to be a component of an understanding of the inspiration and authority of Scripture. An understanding, moreover, by which I don't feel bound, because it isn't scriptural. I concede that I may be reading you wrong here, and possibly imputing things you don't actually hold. In which case, please tell me.
quote:
If God is not wrathful, then the book of Joshua really is just an exercise in Hebrew propaganda,
Well, I'd dispense with the word "just", because I believe that this part of the Deuteronomistic history is much more than "just" that - it's also an articulation of Hebrew history within a tightly controlled theological schema, but other than that it certainly is also "Hebrew propaganda". quote:
a justification of genocide,
In practice, it is that too. And I'm not afraid to say that I find it theologically compromised on that account. I think, if you are going to say that God's full revelation of himself is in Jesus Christ, you are bound to say that. The issue of what the New Testament revelation does to the Old hasn't figured much in these threads, beyond the bandying about of Marcion's name in places. Maybe it should.
quote:
and a clear demonstration that canonical scripture cannot be trusted.
As what? Canonical scripture can be trusted on all sorts of levels in all sorts of ways. Above all, it can be trusted to be what it is. I don't feel under any obligation to trust it as a faultless magic book, or as a Christian Qur'an, the product of one divine author in every way that matters. But I'd say that, since that is true to the way - the total way - the Bible presents itself, I'm bound by that.
quote:
However, if God is wrathful towards sinful people the book of Joshua becomes a trustworthy eschatological picture of God's coming wrath towards the unsaved.
Well, no... The people of Jericho weren't massacred because they were sinful, they were massacred because they were in the way. The promise in these narratives is clearly the possession of the land, and the theme of the wickedness of the inhabitants, such as it is, is clearly ornamental.
quote:
It becomes a picture of what is yet happen to humanity whose sins remain unforgiven through the rejection of Christ's atoning sacrifice. It becomes a picture of judgement.
Well, only if you start out from PSA. Which has been my point all along. If you start out with PSA you read it into Scripture absolutely everywhere. If you start from Scripture, you don't wind up with PSA. Neither Anselm nor Calvin actually started out from Scripture. Anselm started out from an understanding of problem and solution that was grounded in the society of his day, and so did Calvin - except that Calvin also started out from Anselm. But they both started out from a disguised assumption that Law has a univocal meaning in and out of Scripture. They actually start out from an extra-scriptural understanding of God.
--------------------
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
shamwari,
I disagree with you because I find nothing convincingly evidential in your propositions. They read simply a statements of your personal opinion which, with all due respect, carries no weight with me whatsoever.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Dinghy Sailor: quote:
That's why the PSA believers on these threads are the wet fluffy liberals who can find worth in all the major atonement models - at least, I know I can and I don't remember anything to the contrary from the others.
That is a deliberate distortion of what I said.
Since it's not a quote of anything you said but rather a comparison of your own admission of your view of PSA versus the more laissez faire views held by PSA adherents on this thread, I don't see how logic could permit it to possibly be a distortion of anything you said.
quote:
What I don't accept - and I've still seen nothing to convince me to the contrary - is that you can actually hold PSA fully, and give equal, unsubordinated place to other perspectives. I maintain that if you actually hold full PSA you can't do that, however much you think you are.
This is actually relevant to this thread because it's a clue as to why people get so wound up by your claims. Telling people what they believe is bound to hack them off, they'd rather decide that for themselves. This can then provoke a strong reaction and appear like they have some close 'identity' with the belief under debate.
quote:
You have consistently taken it personally, and done so on behalf of other people. (BTW - why do you habitually set yourself up as the spokesman and defender of other people? It happens all the time in your posts.)
Yes, it does happen all the time that I try to explain the logic of people's belief. This is because you've asked why people believe what they do and how you can fit it in, so I've tried to answer you and explain why they believe what they do, based on spending a long time in churches with a lot of such people. I'm only trying to answer the question, what's wrong with that?
Handily, it also exonerates me of the accusation of "taking it personally". I haven't taken anything 'personally' and have said I haven't, but further, how could I possibly take anything personally while speaking in the third person? A classic example would be this post, which was a very stroppy response to my explanation as to why the con-evos in question think the way they do - because they don't like you dispensing with parts of their faith* and yet I still got accused of "taking it personally". Your post there also contained these:
quote:
imbecilic <snip> disreputable <snip> disingenous <snip> Bang to rights!
to which you've now added
quote:
Any speculations I might make on why are inappropriate to a Purgatory thread.
<snip>
moronic
and then there was your comparison to Zeus worship. Don't you think it's a bit rich to accuse anyone else of
quote:
bluster, abuse and the occasional threat.
after saying that? Now, once again, I've given an honest answer and you've jumped on me.
Physician, heal thyself. You asked a question, all the PSA adherents gave you their personal answers, that didn't satisfy you so I tried to explain why other people see things the way they do. It seems this is too much of you and you take to making insults, while at the same time accusing others of being insulting.
*Reading it now, I could have made the post a bit more crystal clear so sorry about that.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
May I ask what is 'evidential' in your statement?
As has been pointed out the Book of Joshua is part the the Deuteronomic corpus. Its a theological point of view based on a blessings and curses axis.
And the evidence is that Jesus of Nazareth would not have advocated that line of thinking. If its evidence you want then consult the Gospels for any evidence of the advocation of genocide.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Psyduck,
quote:
And only if you take a very particular view of the Book of Joshua, which I would surmise has to be a component of an understanding of the inspiration and authority of Scripture.
No, you're right. My approach to the 'problem' of Joshua is informed by my understanding of the inspiration and authority of Scripture. However, I wonder if you are aware of the irony of your statement quoted above? The authority to which you appeal for your rejection of Scripture's authority (or a least a certain view of it) is Scripture! Why is that?
quote:
I think, if you are going to say that God's full revelation of himself is in Jesus Christ, you are bound to say that
I see no contradiction between what happens in Joshua and the Jesus who told the parable of the ten minas in Luke 19 or the parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25 or the parable of Lazarus in Luke 16 or the parable of the unfruitful fig three in Luke 13. Or the teachings of Jesus on hell. What is it about Jesus that leads you to believe that things have somehow got less 'wrathful' on his watch? i really do think that non-PSA models of the atonement rely on a gelded vision of Jesus that bears little resemblance to the Jesus that is portrayed in the gospel texts in the NT in general.
quote:
As what?
In this instance, as the reliable and trustworthy means by which God has accurately revealed his character.
quote:
The promise in these narratives is clearly the possession of the land...
Which can easily be read eschatologically.
quote:
...and the theme of the wickedness of the inhabitants, such as it is, is clearly ornamental.
Matt Black is good on the use of the word "clearly" as a rhetorical device. I've tried to stop using it for that reason. I would prefer to hear clear argument than freefloating appeals to clarity.
quote:
If you start out with PSA you read it into Scripture absolutely everywhere.
The same can be said for non-PSA models of the atonement. The implication of your claim is that the doctrine of PSA has ramifications for all other doctrines. I agree. The issue is whether PSA can be arrived at by reading Scripture accurately. I think it can, and the fact that it's you - rather than me - that has to do incredible amounts of mental and theological gymnastics to avoid it, suggests to me that you do too. For example, insisting that PSA wouldn't be arrived at if one reads the bible in the original Greek is an absolutely massive statement to make and which has huge pastoral, devotional, ecclesiological, theological ramifications.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Am I missing something, or (niceties of style and expression aside) are Justinian and Dinghy Sailor in complete agreement on this?!?
I've no idea whether it's complete agreement. But it's certainly complementary, starting at opposite ends. Dinghy Sailor's approach was coming from the side of what the pro-PSA camp thought of the non-PSA group whereas mine came from the non-PSA side regarding the pro-PSA/accept all scripture as inerrant. (And what Moses and Pharaoh have to do with this is what sort of God PSA + inerrancy requires accepting).
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
I believe we do agree but I'm perplexed as to why Justinian posted what he did on this thread. It seems that his beef isn't with PSA but is with the trustworthiness of the bible, based on an unrelated OT episode that he doesn't like. As far as I can make it, his logic says that there are bits of the bible he doesn't like, ergo he doesn't believe the bible and if you believe in PSA, you are willing to believe the bible and therefore believe the bits he doesn't like, ergo he doesn't like you.
My point is (and PSA alone (assuming that the existance of a populated hell necessarily flows from PSA) is enough, Exodus is simply much more clear cut) that under PSA God is a sadistic monster, full of his own importance and almost devoid of compassion. If you worship such a God you clearly have no problems worshipping a monster. And I have no time for the moral insights of people who have no problem worshipping monsters.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
Justinian, surely that is then a problem not with PSA but with inerrancy or with any 'high' view of scripture (since I don't subscribe to inerrancy)? Again, what has it then got to do with this thread?
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
Justinian, does this mean that your problem is with hell rather than PSA? Once again, it's a separate issue. PSA is by no means the only atonement model that can incorporate hell and I believe I've met people who hold all four possible combinations of belief in hell and PSA (Jesus paid for your sins whether you like it or not, Jesus paid for your sins but only if you accept it, Jesus [did something else on the cross] but you still have to accept it, Jesus [did something else] and you're automatically saved). Some of those people's theologies were slightly, well, fuzzy but as I'm speaking to someone who's recently conflated hell, atonement and OT genocide, I'm sure you wont' mind that ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
The truth is that PSA is a description of how God saves us from hell, it's a description of a God who will not do violence against his people even to the point where it kills him. What's monstrous about that?
To drag this thread back nearer the OP about PSA and Christian identities. note that Justinian has just called God a monster. To many ears that is gets dangerously close to protest atheism, from which lots of Christians will want to steer very clear. I'd also like to flag up what someone else said a while back, if you go round using pejoratives like "monster", you shouldn't be surprised when people assume a bunker mentality and close ranks on you - another reason why a strong reaction can be provoked from the PSA crowd.
Yet another reason that PSAers can be worried is because they can have a sneaking suspicion that the objectors are actually like Justinian and want to throw out the doctrine of hell and the authority of the bible at the same time. That's not fair when someone wants to have a decent debate, but it's perfectly understandable if the PSAers have had this sort of experience before.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
Psyduck wrote:
quote:
Serving suggestion: read Bonhoeffer's Ethics. Then read Fletcher's Situation Ethics. Then see which of Job's comforters you can identify either of them with.
I don't get it, I must be not understanding your post. I suggested that going at the problem from a moral angle would be futile, given the limits to the access we have to the information about the number and type of interdependencies the action of an individual affects. You suggest I read some writings by Bonhoffer and Fletcher. Have they overcome the limitations? The last I heard, moral dilemmas have actually multiplied, become more complicated and study (including those by your, human, authors) hasn't solved the problem. And Job still remains the prime example of our limitations in understanding God: wrapping your mind about the killing of guilty people is sucking egg, compared to figuring out how He can justify killing Job's children.
And glad you agree that theodicy isn't the solution, but what exactly would the incarnation do in terms of bringing light to bear on the problem that God is a God of mercy AND justice?
quote:
The point isn't how to translate them. It's the importance of understanding them in the Greek. The muslims put us to shame here. They are perfectly clear that the Qur'an is an Arabic text, and needs to be read in Arabic, and if you want to be a muslim, you need to learn enough Arabic to be able to do that.
There was a baker in London in the 1650s, Christopher Hill tells us, who had memorized the whole of the Greek NT as far as Revelation chapter 8. He clearly thought it was worth doing.
The problem with this logic is that Islam requires complete, unquestioning surrender to Allah. So the Arabic-literate Muslim understands that you have to put your reasoning to one side and obey all of Quran, while the liberal Muslim cuts out large chunks of the teachings and listens to his own heart. Ironically, leading to quite an opposite result to the one you were attempting to arrive at. IOW, having the language doesn't necessarily lead to reconciling contradictions, and isn't THE key to understanding God's ways. Understanding how the body of Scripture was formed and the criteria used in the rejection of non-Canonical material is, however, helpful.
And where does your intense study of the text and acquisition of the language put you when you try to understand :
14But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, "Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Mark 10
For example, my younger son has LLD: does that make him ineligible for entry?
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Taliesin
Shipmate
# 14017
|
Posted
I'm sorry, can't read all 6 pages...
tried to google, see PSA definitions, or if you google 'PSA Christianity' you get this... so I understand it's something to do with justice and wrath... or not... Personal Saviour A_ _ _?
[ 08. July 2010, 14:46: Message edited by: Taliesin ]
Posts: 2138 | From: South, UK | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Taliesin
Shipmate
# 14017
|
Posted
and there was this one I can't believe that something everyone seems to understand is so unknown on the web!
Punitive Social Avatar...
Powerful Scary Angel
Probably Something Angry?
Posts: 2138 | From: South, UK | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Taliesin
Shipmate
# 14017
|
Posted
Ha! Found it. Knew if I avoided the housework for long enough I'd be rewarded. Now how did I survive in the church this long, without knowing that PSA stood for 'Penal Substitutionary Atonement' and that an exposition can be found here ?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) no don't thank me, I know this explains all and we can go away happy.
[ 08. July 2010, 15:04: Message edited by: Taliesin ]
Posts: 2138 | From: South, UK | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Taliesin, I've only come across PSA as an acronym for 'penal substitutionary atonement' here aboard Ship where it has been debated many, many times. It's a Ship's shorthand, as far as I can tell, so I'm not surprised you've not come across the acronym before.
--------------------
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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm not sure I am "constantly apologising for Is 53", but I do think that it's the only text that seems to have a natural meaning in line with PSA.
Perhaps you could inform Dafyd of that.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Of course, just because I think there is a moral argument against PSA (and I do) doesn't preclude that there is a textual argument against it as well. I tend to use the argument that is appropriate to the situation as I see it.
I don't think you meant it this way but the way you phrased this rang bells with me JJ. I assume that you mean that you hold your position because of both the textual and moral argument at the same time.
I am fully willing to admit that I read my preconceptions into the text and into discussions. However, I have an internal alarm that rings whenever I find myself arguing on a different basis in different situations. (I'm not saying that you are doing this - I'm merely speaking about myself.) When I trot out different responses in different situations it can often mean that I haven't really got a coherent and satisfying answer myself. It is usually a tell-tale that I'm arguing on an a priori basis that I must be right in this instance.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Call me Numpty: quote:
I wonder if you are aware of the irony of your statement quoted above? The authority to which you appeal for your rejection of Scripture's authority (or a least a certain view of it) is Scripture!
Where’s the irony in that? What you say in brackets eviscerates your own argument! I’m not rejecting “the authority of Scripture” at all – as you yourself recognize (in brackets.) I’m rejecting your view of Biblical authority, on the basis of a scholarly consensus as to what the Bible itself presents itself to be, and a theological faithfulness to the understanding that its authority derives from its witness to Jesus Christ.
quote:
What is it about Jesus that leads you to believe that things have somehow got less 'wrathful' on his watch?
Less “wrathful” than what? Than a scenario of mass killing and dying in which you see the nature of God reflected? And not just in the generalized Sunday School “God brings his people through” sense, but in detail, in the detail of the human killing, dying and suffering?
What is it that would prevent one, in the light of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, seeing something deeply obscene in any glorification in suffering? Your view of the Bible seems to mean that you have to accord equal weight to the values contained in the traditions of thirteenth and twelft-century BC tribes, reflecting the conditions of a culture-war against iron-age cities, filtered through a seventh-sixth century BC re-editing and re-theologizing of those traditions.
Aren't you saying, unlike the mainstream of twentieth-century Protestant theology, and, indeed, the New Testament itself, that God doesn’t reveal himself completely in Jesus Christ, but in the Bible? The NT is completely consistent in using the OT to eke out its understanding of the new thing God is doing in Jesus. ISTM you are re-embedding Jesus in a Bible which is homogeneously God’s revelation from end to end, and subordinating him to it.
quote:
I see no contradiction between what happens in Joshua and the Jesus who told the parable of the ten minas in Luke 19 or the parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25 or the parable of Lazarus in Luke 16 or the parable of the unfruitful fig three in Luke 13.
That’s because as I see it, you are starting with an artificial unity imposed on the Bible from outside by a PSA perspective.
To take from the texts you cite just one example, for lack of space – the parable of the fig tree. The landowner wants it cut down. The actual horticulturist who has to deal with it says “Give it more manure, a bit of TLC and another year. In my experience that can work…” It’s a parable, not an allegory. It’s complete eisegesis to press on beyond that to “The owner is God, the nice horticulturist is Jesus, the fig tree is the soul, the incinerator is hell, the scenario is PSA.” The problem with approaches to Scripture like this is that you wind up doing wrought-ironwork to it, bending it to your preferred shape, without even realizing it – because it is approached in the belief that its truth is already known, and it must be saying in every particular instance what we already know it is saying in general.
And we know that it’s all about PSA. Joshua is about PSA. The gospels are about PSA. Every treatment of every text in support of PSA on every one of the current threads suffers from this. It’s the only way you can find PSA in the Bible. By putting it there.
quote:
I really do think that non-PSA models of the atonement rely on a gelded vision of Jesus that bears little resemblance to the Jesus that is portrayed in the gospel texts in the NT in general.
All of them? So you are fessing up to the accuracy of the charge that PSA can’t live with other perspectives on the atonement? That only PSA is “real” atonement, with its cojones intact? That’s what I’ve been saying of PSA since the recent threads began. Maybe you have already said this, and don’t disagree with me, but if so, I missed it, and I apologize. Beware, though - Dinghy Sailor will be down on you like a ton of bricks for being an “exclusivist”, you know!
You won’t be surprised to know that I am quite clear that PSA depends on gathering together under its own rubric every instance of wrath-language, punishment-language, sacrifice-language, guilt-language, condemnation-language, eschatologically-tinged language in the Bible and making it all fit the PSA framework. As with the Parable of the Unfruitful Fig-tree above. And as with this:
quote:
quote:
________________________________________
The promise in these narratives [Joshua] is clearly the possession of the land...
________________________________________
Which can easily be read eschatologically.
If you want, if you really, really want. You can read anything any way you want. Ask the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Isn’t the important thing to read the texts for what they say, not for how they shore up doctrinal preconceptions?
quote:
quote:
If you start out with PSA you read it into Scripture absolutely everywhere.
The same can be said for non-PSA models of the atonement.
No it can’t. These are read out of – derived from – Scripture at the points where Scripture suggests them. They aren’t hegemonic, all-controlling, because they are parts of a whole, viz. the church’s response to the Scriptural witness to what God was doing in Christ. None of them claims to exhaust this inexhaustible subject. PSA, though, does. You have as good as admitted it:
quote:
The implication of your claim is that the doctrine of PSA has ramifications for all other doctrines.
I’d like to put the question of PSA exclusiveness again, but in a slightly different way. You say PSA is a doctrine. Presumably it is, for the people who hold it, the doctrine of the atonement There can’t be two doctrines of the incarnation, or of the trinity, held simultaneously, can there? The whole Eastern Church and the whole Roman Catholic Church couldn’t manage that over the filioque! How can you hold a doctrine of the atonement – like PSA – in conjunction with another understanding of the atonement on the same level? And BTW isn't it significant that the Concise Oxford DIctionary of the Christian Church says that there is no catholic (belived always, everywhere and by everyone) doctrine of the atonement? Isn't this maybe why? That holding a doctrine of the atonement is tantamount on some level to claiming that you have successfully exhausted the inexhaustible riches of Christ, and can sum it all up?
quote:
quote:
The issue is whether PSA can be arrived at by reading Scripture accurately
.
I think it can, and the fact that it's you - rather than me - that has to do incredible amounts of mental and theological gymnastics to avoid it, suggests to me that you do too.
Says you. Show me where I have done such gymnastics. For that matter, show me one place in Scripture from which you can derive PSA whole and entire. You can’t. Because PSA doesn’t derive from one place in Scripture. It’s a series of concepts and statements, abstracted from Scripture, put together in a theologian’s lab, and re-read back into Scripture, particularly Paul. Do that, and of course you will see it everywhere, even in Joshua. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
For example, insisting that PSA wouldn't be arrived at if one reads the bible in the original Greek is an absolutely massive statement to make and which has huge pastoral, devotional, ecclesiological,
theological ramifications.
That’s not what I said. I’m not saying you wouldn’t arrive at PSA if you read the NT in the original Greek. What I am saying is that you wouldn’t be able to sustain the claim that PSA is straightforwardly Biblical because it’s “there in the text.” You would have to fall back on the truth that PSA is an assemblage of perspectives drawn from both Testaments, and assembled into a synthetic doctrine.
My point was that behind the translations we use is a Greek text which doesn’t “have PSA in it.” If the purpose of a translation is not to allow access to a text to those who are unfamiliar with its original language, but to make such people believe that the text says things it actually doesn’t, on the basis that “that’s just ‘bringing out’ what ‘the Bible teaches’” then there is something deeply dangerous going on. In a sense, I was partially agreeing with you against Jolly Jape. It isn’t necessary to retranslate “wrath” as “indignation” or to search for other words to translate passages like Romans 2:6-9.
The point is that you don’t win battles over the meaning of texts by “spinning” our translations of them – though the GNB, and much conservative exegesis thinks you do – but by listening to them, and interpreting them faithfully. When you do that to the NT, PSA dissolves into its constituent themes, sacrificial, judicial, etc. and they become once more part of the repertoire of NT perspectives on what God was doing in Christ.
Where’s the gymnastics in that?
At a deeper level, of course, I was countering your implicit assertion that where the Bible says “wrath” it means (a) the unbridled fury that consumed the inhabitants of Jericho, only this time applied to God eschatologically (and C H Dodd knocks that one on the head) and (b) that wherever the Bible mentions any one of a number of concepts, it’s always referring by synecdoche (part-stands-for-whole) to PSA.
[ 09. July 2010, 05:22: Message edited by: Psyduck ]
--------------------
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
quote:
Psyduck posted:I’m rejecting your view of Biblical authority, on the basis of a scholarly consensus as to what the Bible itself presents itself to be, and a theological faithfulness to the understanding that its authority derives from its witness to Jesus Christ.
I'm not sure that there is "scholarly consensus" on the issue. There may be consensus among scholars of a particular theological stripe with which you agree, but I think a global statement such as this would need to be very well supported. At the moment you do seem to be suggesting that no scholars hold the same or similar view of biblical authority as me; which seems a a trifle inaccurate. Admittedly, it would be theologians and pastor whom I favour, but that's to be expected.
quote:
What is it that would prevent one, in the light of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, seeing something deeply obscene in any glorification in suffering?
I don't think suffering is 'glorified' in the book of Joshua, although some passages in Revelation certainly read that way. Take Revelation 14:9-12 for example: quote:
9A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, 10he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name." 12This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus.
Or Revelation 19:1-3: quote:
1After this I heard what sounded like the roar of a great multitude in heaven shouting:
"Hallelujah!
Salvation and glory and power belong to our God,
2for true and just are his judgments.
He has condemned the great prostitute
who corrupted the earth by her adulteries.
He has avenged on her the blood of his servants." 3And again they shouted:
"Hallelujah!
The smoke from her goes up for ever and ever."
quote:
ISTM you are re-embedding Jesus in a Bible which is homogeneously God’s revelation from end to end, and subordinating him to it.
That would one way of putting it. Another way of putting it would be to say that Scripture has been given to us by God in order to reveal this Jesus. Jesus is not subordninate to scripture, but his lack of subordination to it never manifests itself in the diminution of its status and authority as divine revelation. After all, all Scripture is about Christ.
quote:
To take from the texts you cite just one example, for lack of space – the parable of the fig tree. The landowner wants it cut down. The actual horticulturist who has to deal with it says “Give it more manure, a bit of TLC and another year. In my experience that can work…” It’s a parable, not an allegory
Yes, but you didn't finish the parable! If you're going to read mercy from the text (and it is there to be sure) you should also read judgement too (and it is also there). Verse 9 says, "If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down." I am advocating a vision of God in which the manure of mercy and axe of wrath are coterminous non-contradictory attributes of God's holiness.
quote:
I’m not saying you wouldn’t arrive at PSA if you read the NT in the original Greek. What I am saying is that you wouldn’t be able to sustain the claim that PSA is straightforwardly Biblical because it’s “there in the text.” You would have to fall back on the truth that PSA is an assemblage of perspectives drawn from both Testaments, and assembled into a synthetic doctrine.
The Jehovah's Witnesses use tis argument in an attempt to refute the doctrine of the Trinity. It doesn't work.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Obviously I continue to differ from you in those points you've highlighted, but I'd just like to comment on this: quote:
Yes, but you didn't finish the parable! If you're going to read mercy from the text (and it is there to be sure) you should also read judgement too (and it is also there). Verse 9 says, "If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down."
No, but I assume the ending; it's about expectation and the gracious extension of that expectation - in order that the expectation may be met. And, indeed, "or else..." I didn't leave it off to duck an issue, and it doesn't affect my interpretation in any way at all. It's about the expectation of fruit, not PSA.
quote:
I am advocating a vision of God in which the manure of mercy and axe of wrath are coterminous non-contradictory attributes of God's holiness.
That's an interesting expansion of the thought of the parable, but even it's nothing to do with PSA. The only way in which you get PSA in here is to import it.
[ 09. July 2010, 10:25: Message edited by: Psyduck ]
--------------------
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
You're right, it's not about PSA, but is about judgement in precisely the same way as John 15:5-6 are about fruit and the consequences of fruitlessness. quote:
5"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.
The parables I've mentioned (and others) speak of judgement to the consequences of judgement as well as righteousness and the fruit of righteousness. It doesn't take a great deal of biblical understanding to draw the link between the negative consequences mentioned in the parables and the wrath of God.
[ 09. July 2010, 12:35: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
That's an interesting expansion of the thought of the parable.
I would suggest that this isn't an expansion on the meaning of the parable; it is integral to the parable's meaning. It is something that you left out, not something I've added.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
I'm agreeing with you that your expansion is arguably an expansion of the thought of the parable.
I'm just saying that neither it nor the parable are anything to do with PSA.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
I'm agreeing with you that your expansion is arguably an expansion of the thought of the parable.
I'm just saying that neither it nor the parable are anything to do with PSA.
I'd suggest they they are (at least in part) to do with the penal consequences of God's judgement. So, the parables may not be about substitution or atonement, but they are about penalty.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But anyway, the fact is that arguments against PSA are rarely textual, but are much more like the infamous Chalke argument, or Justinian's argument on this thread: "I don't really like the God this represents, so I reject the doctrine." Unsurprisingly, to those who believe in the authority of Scripture this is an unconvincing argument.
You miss the argument. If I believed in PSA I hope I would be a Satanist. Because your God is Evil to a level that nothing I have heard attributed to The Adversary comes close. And I hope I would have the courage to oppose God to the limits of my strength and beyond.
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Justinian, does this mean that your problem is with hell rather than PSA? Once again, it's a separate issue.
OK. Separate them. What you have left is the Abusive Spouse model of theology.
"Honey. You shouldn't have made me hit you."
"Honey. I wouldn't have to hit you if you just did what I say."
"Honey. You made me hit you again. You shouldn't have done that."
"Honey. I wish you'd love me and stop making me hit you."
"Honey. Good news. Our son just jumped in the way. So I hit him instead of you. And sent him to hospital for three days. Isn't that Good News?"
God sets the rules. God sets the punishment. God choses to punish us because we are flawed - and we are flawed because he created us as such. The power to punish and to decide who is punished is in God's hands. And he sets impossible standards and wants to be worshipped for not torturing people who don't meet them.
quote:
The truth is that PSA is a description of how God saves us from hell, it's a description of a God who will not do violence against his people even to the point where it kills him. What's monstrous about that?
Like hell it is! Under PSA, God is apparently so Graceless as to be incapable of simple forgiveness. Under PSA God's overriding desire is to inflict violence on people and it does not matter who. Because the one who sets the penalties is God and there is no need for him to set those penalties. If the Most High desired to not inflict violence, then in his Omnipotence it would be so. Instead he does violence against his people and then his Son (or himself if you want to argue that way).
At its best, PSA is the story of one flawed entity understanding and coming to terms with what a monster he's been and apologising in the grandest way he can. By sharing the suffering he has willfully and gratuitously inflicted on others as he frees them of their torment.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Call me Numpty: quote:
I'd suggest they they are (at least in part) to do with the penal consequences of God's judgement. So, the parables may not be about substitution or atonement, but they are about penalty.
See, this is my point throughout. PSA takes scattered references to sacrifice, substitution, wrath, penalty, etc. etc. out of the Bible - and the mindset which legitimates this is that the Bible consists of infallible univocal propositions which, being straightforwardly true can be assembled into compound true doctrinal statements - and (in combination with other explanatory frameworks - and Augustinian original sin is as important here as Anselmian satisfaction-theory) assembles them into a theory which is then re-imported into Scripture.
It's Biblical genetic engineering. You can see PSA resequencing the DNA of the Bible!
--------------------
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
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Sorry, Fanged_seraphim. It's Penal Substitutionary Atonement. WIkipedia has an article on it but SoF won't let me post the URL because it has parentheses in it.
And BTW I agree with the substance of Justinian's criticism of it above, though I'd want to add also the damage it does to a trinitarian understanding of God, and several other things too.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Call me Numpty: quote:
I'd suggest they they are (at least in part) to do with the penal consequences of God's judgement. So, the parables may not be about substitution or atonement, but they are about penalty.
See, this is my point throughout. PSA takes scattered references to sacrifice, substitution, wrath, penalty, etc. etc. out of the Bible - and the mindset which legitimates this is that the Bible consists of infallible univocal propositions which, being straightforwardly true can be assembled into compound true doctrinal statements - and (in combination with other explanatory frameworks - and Augustinian original sin is as important here as Anselmian satisfaction-theory) assembles them into a theory which is then re-imported into Scripture.
It's Biblical genetic engineering. You can see PSA resequencing the DNA of the Bible!
And as I've already said, the Jehovah's witnesses try this argument with the Trinity. It doesn't work.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
OK - I'll bite. Why doesn't it work - and how is this knowledge transferrable to the case of PSA?
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
