homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Among mainline denominations what is the dominant theory of the atonement? (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  9  10  11 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Among mainline denominations what is the dominant theory of the atonement?
Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

 - Posted      Profile for Sober Preacher's Kid   Email Sober Preacher's Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've never been one for atonement theology, but the United Church of Canada, the poster-child of mainline for Anglican_brat and myself, comfortably trots PSA out this time of year, along with the classic Wesleyan interpretation. Moral Atonement isn't one I've come across much in sermons and definitely not in hymns.

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651

 - Posted      Profile for Starlight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is read back into the NT, e.g. by those who translate 'for us' as if the word was 'anti' = instead of us, instead of 'uper' = on our behalf.

Occasionally this belief by PSAers that the Bible writers really ought to have used 'anti' rather than 'uper' gets the better of reality... one pro-PSA book I read told me that "the word used in these passages is 'anti' and means 'instead of us'." Opps. [Eek!] I think that's called creative thinking. [Razz]
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
PD
Shipmate
# 12436

 - Posted      Profile for PD   Author's homepage   Email PD   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I tend to wobble between Christus Victor and PSA with Moral Inflence trailing in a distant third. The dominant thought in my mind is St. John's "It is finished." The ideas of fulfilling the Law and the Prophets and 'paying the price' of human sin are strong themes in my thinking about the atonement, but I am extremely reluctant to commit to one theory. The idea of each theory being a facet of a greater whole appeals to me.

PD

--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!

My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com

Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649

 - Posted      Profile for Raptor Eye     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I see the ideas and language behind models such as penal substitution and satisfaction as portraying a God who required the torture, misery and death of Jesus. I cannot find this in the nature of God. The ransom and Christus Victor theories surely give more power to the devil than he/she/it deserves. These ideas and language are embroiled within the liturgy and hymns of mainline churches, which is unhelpful to seekers and developers. A lot more needs to be done to try to unpack them so that the scriptures might be fully understood in terms of God's good nature.

I think that the cross and resurrection, interwoven with the life and teaching of Jesus before them, are about God reaching us where we are, encouraging us to respond to his overtures of love, and showing us that nothing can separate us from him, not sin nor death. This is more than moral influence, but its basic premise that the cross is about our response is sound.

--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10

Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956

 - Posted      Profile for pererin   Email pererin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sacrifice was still the foundation of atonement - blood sacrifice is at the heart of it all.

As is so often the case, the answer is in Jeremiah:

7:21 Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices, and eat the flesh. 22 For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. 23 But this command I gave them, "Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people; and walk only in the way that I command you, so that it may be well with you." 24 Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but, in the stubbornness of their evil will, they walked in their own counsels, and looked backward rather than forward. 25 From the day that your ancestors came out of the land of Egypt until this day, I have persistently sent all my servants the prophets to them, day after day; 26 yet they did not listen to me, or pay attention, but they stiffened their necks. They did worse than their ancestors did. (NRSV)

So who kept adding the blood sacrifice stuff to YHWH's message of obedience? Jeremiah continues:

8:8 How can you say, "We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us," when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie? (NRSV)

And still the scribes' successors are at their old work on the New Covenant.

--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)

Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
as it is of course in the New Testament.

No it isn't. It is read back into the NT, e.g. by those who translate 'for us' as if the word was 'anti' = instead of us, instead of 'uper' = on our behalf. The latter, which is what the text says, infers that we have to die with him, through baptism.
The fact that we are called to mystical participation in Christ's death - symbolised in water baptism - is an argument that Christ did in fact die as both our substitute and our representative. Christ now provides a safe place to die to sin (i.e. himself) in that he has died in advance for that very sin and has been risen from the dead. There is no sin for which Christ's death cannot atone, or indeed be said not to have already atoned. This is why Christ himself has become for us the safe place to crucify our flesh.
A representive is not necessarily an substitute and the early Fathers had a very different view of what happens at Baptism.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599

 - Posted      Profile for footwasher   Email footwasher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sacrifice was still the foundation of atonement - blood sacrifice is at the heart of it all.

As is so often the case, the answer is in Jeremiah:

7:21 Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices, and eat the flesh. 22 For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. 23 But this command I gave them, "Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people; and walk only in the way that I command you, so that it may be well with you." 24 Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but, in the stubbornness of their evil will, they walked in their own counsels, and looked backward rather than forward. 25 From the day that your ancestors came out of the land of Egypt until this day, I have persistently sent all my servants the prophets to them, day after day; 26 yet they did not listen to me, or pay attention, but they stiffened their necks. They did worse than their ancestors did. (NRSV)

So who kept adding the blood sacrifice stuff to YHWH's message of obedience? Jeremiah continues:

8:8 How can you say, "We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us," when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie? (NRSV)

And still the scribes' successors are at their old work on the New Covenant.

Israel was set up:
7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;

8 just as it is written, “GOD GAVE THEM A SPIRIT OF STUPOR, EYES TO SEE NOT AND EARS TO HEAR NOT, DOWN TO THIS VERY DAY.” Romans 11

9I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; 10 and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; 11 for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. Romans 7


To increase God's Family:
30 For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, Romans 11

The offerings and sacrifices were good commandments, but they were not meant for the Children of Israel!

6 But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: "DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, 'WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?' (that is, to bring Christ down), Romans 10

--------------------
Ship's crimp

Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675

 - Posted      Profile for Komensky   Email Komensky   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm following this thread with great interest. I'd love to hear some recommendations for good books on Christus Victor (private message please, so as not to derail thread).

Thanks,

K.

--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've not read it, but Gustav Aulen's book 'Christus Victor' is meant to be the definitive text.

I always thought that the Orthodox liked this particular model, but then I can across an Orthodox board online where they were dissing it. Probably still too 'Western' for them ...

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

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

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Starlight:Studying the thinking of societies that practice sacrifices and studying the Biblical sacrificial language carefully is therefore important. Such study provides a number of arguments against a PSA view of the atonement, and provides support for a Moral Influence view. ie what the Bible has to say about sacrifices goes against PSA and supports a Moral Influence view, not vice versa.
What the Bible has to say about sacrifices in a nutshell is that man cannot approach God without them. The complexity of the Mosaic law demands lots of types for lots of purposes but the common thread is that God is holy, man is sinful, sacrifice paves the way for the unholy to approach the holy. Far from being 'read into' the NT, Christ made himself the once for all sacrifice by which man can finally approach God. In doing so he fulfilled and superseded the Mosaic system. Most of Paul's writings are designed to prove that very thing.

Regarding 1Cor 15:3, the sacrifice was on behalf of 'our sins' as well as of our persons. Fits neatly with a PSA reading.

[ 12. April 2012, 21:13: Message edited by: Jamat ]

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

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Only if you approach it that way, Jamat ...

I'll meet you half-way, but it is clear that there are other ways of looking at it.

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What the Bible has to say about sacrifices in a nutshell is that man cannot approach God without them.

Right. Here's a typical passage of OT scripture on sacrifices. Good, careful reading, Jamat.

--Tom Clune

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rosina
Shipmate
# 15589

 - Posted      Profile for Rosina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What the Bible has to say about sacrifices in a nutshell is that man cannot approach God without them.

Right. Here's a typical passage of OT scripture on sacrifices. Good, careful reading, Jamat.

--Tom Clune

It seems to me none of mankind will have life from God until death is removed.

What is the sacrifice required by God?

isn't it written "without the shedding of blood there is no removal of sin"

what is this blood that must be shed?

I suggest this blood is the carnal mind which caused the spiritual death of Adam.

Jesus offered the sacrifice required by God.

There was never nor is there now a physical sacrifice required by God. It is the old mind and spirit which is to be sacrificed before the Spiritual life from God can be resurrected in a perSON.

My understanding is that Jesus laid down the old life man and religion had taught him, he emptied himself of all he had been taught, thereby making place for the Word of God which he received, in which is the life God gives man as His Son.

--------------------
"Imagine." If you can imagine, you can dream, and if you can dream, you can hope and if you have hope, you may seek and if you seek; you will find.

Posts: 75 | From: Lancashire | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I think that the cross and resurrection, interwoven with the life and teaching of Jesus before them, are about God reaching us where we are, encouraging us to respond to his overtures of love, and showing us that nothing can separate us from him, not sin nor death. This is more than moral influence, but its basic premise that the cross is about our response is sound.

I'm semi-Pelagian enough to agree with this. Whatever Christ did for us, it's just as important how we respond. But I believe that our chance to respond is eternal, so there's no time limit on repentance.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosina:
isn't it written "without the shedding of blood there is no removal of sin"

Yes, and statement like this seem to assume that the Bible presents a single, coherent set of principles. AFAICS, it is a dialog through the ages of faithful people. It defies logic to say that the prophets were somehow just reiterating what was expressed -- however poorly -- in the Torah. They are in dialog with what went before them, and the prophets pretty much to a man reject the notion of sacrifice as presented in the Torah. That was the point that I was making in response to Jamat.

--Tom Clune

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What the Bible has to say about sacrifices in a nutshell is that man cannot approach God without them.

We don't need to approach God. He approaches us.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649

 - Posted      Profile for Raptor Eye     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We don't need to approach God. He approaches us.

This is true. God approaches us with the invitation to draw near to him, so that when we respond and do so he will draw near to us.

--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10

Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651

 - Posted      Profile for Starlight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What the Bible has to say about sacrifices in a nutshell is that man cannot approach God without them.

Hmmm, except for the various passages which say that man can approach God without sacrifices, as tclune mentioned. Various NT ones about 'faith' also come to mind.

quote:
The complexity of the Mosaic law demands lots of types for lots of purposes but the common thread is that God is holy, man is sinful, sacrifice paves the way for the unholy to approach the holy.
Yes, one of the several types of sacrifice focuses on making people holy. No, it's not "the common thread", but yes it is there.

quote:
Far from being 'read into' the NT, Christ made himself the once for all sacrifice by which man can finally approach God. In doing so he fulfilled and superseded the Mosaic system.
A major problem with PSA and sacrifices is that no culture or society ever documented has believed that their sacrifices work like PSA. There are no examples of sin being transferred to an animal and it being subsequently killed. There are no examples of the death of the animal being the focus of sacrificial rituals (the death of the animal is always an incidental prelude to the rituals which focus on using the meat for eating, or using the organs and blood of the animal in ritualistic ways). It's not merely that Israelite sacrifices didn't work like this: No culture anywhere in world history that has ever been studied by anthropologists or historians thought their sacrifices worked by PSA. The only people who think sacrifices work by PSA are modern Christians who have projected their misconceptions about Jesus backward to a culture of sacrifice of which they are ignorant. No sacrifices have ever been about sin-substitution, and none have ever focused on the death of the animal. So the NT use of sacrificial language should not be taken as implying that Jesus' death was a penal substitutionary one. On the contrary, it is good evidence against a PSA reading of Jesus' death.

You comment that the sacrifices were meant to make the unholy holy. Yes, that's right, many sacrifices (including one type of Israelite sacrifice) were intended to transfer holiness from the blood of the pure animal to the impure person / object being touched by that blood. The transfer was never conceived as going the other way, ie sin never went into the sacrifice before it was killed; but holiness is often understood to be transferred.

So, I suppose that if you wanted to teach the doctrine of Imputed Righteousness (ie Christ's righteousness is shared with us) but without PSA (ie our sin isn't transferred to him, and he isn't punished for our sins), then yes that is perfectly justifiable on sacrificial-analogy grounds. ie "we were sinners in the eyes of God, but Christ died to share his righteousness with us, and now we are holy by Christ's blood". (There's a possible ambiguity here: Are we actually holy and no longer sinners due to Christ's blood; or is God now wearing Christ's-blood tinted glasses and so sees as as holy when we are still sinful?) No sin transfer, no punishment, only a sharing of his righteousness and holiness. Hmmm, that's actually quite an interesting concept. The difficulty with it seems to be "how does it work?" How do you share righteousness? Why is his death necessary to share that righteousness? I think this is where the Moral Influence theory kicks in and says that Christ shared his righteousness through his teachings and example, and died for it. It was that sharing of righteousness (through moral teachings) that leads the NT authors to use analogies of Old Testament sacrifices that share holiness.

Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Rosina
Shipmate
# 15589

 - Posted      Profile for Rosina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
snip:

[/QUOTE]
Whatever Christ did for us, it's just as important how we respond. But I believe that our chance to respond is eternal, so there's no time limit on repentance. [/QB][/QUOTE]

[Ultra confused]


Why do you believe our chance to respond is eternal Paul?

Didn't Paul say "Salvation is now"?

If our chance to respond to "whatever Christ did for us" is eternal, what does the story of the "rich man and the beggar Lazarus" mean?

What is a law of God which cannot be changed?

Why did Jesus teach "repent for the kingdom of God is near", if "our chance to respond is eternal?"

What about all those teachings about "hell" and avoiding it if responding is eternal?

Evil and sin cannot dwell with God - we must be "made clean"

How does Jesus' word make us "clean" if we choose to respond some time in eternity? I don't understand your comment at all.
[Help]

--------------------
"Imagine." If you can imagine, you can dream, and if you can dream, you can hope and if you have hope, you may seek and if you seek; you will find.

Posts: 75 | From: Lancashire | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941

 - Posted      Profile for Stejjie   Author's homepage   Email Stejjie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Starlight:

But the NT does talk about "sin transfer" as part of what went on on the cross. Paul (who would hardly have been unaware of the Jewish sacrificial system and what it meant) talks about in, eg 2 Corinthians 5:21 (where Paul talks about Jesus being "made sin" for us), or Romans 8:3-4, where sin is condemned in the flesh of Jesus so that we may be free from condemnation. John the Baptist talks of Jesus taking on the sins of the world; again, surely he knew what sacrifice was all about and whether sin could ever be transferred.

And even if sin couldn't be transferred to an animal to be sacrificed, does that mean it could never happen? Isn't that what the Romans 8 passage is about - that sin was transferred to Christ in a way that had not happened before, so that He bore its condemnation - not us?

I'd argue, like Mudfrog, that any theory of "atonement" should cover the full range of ideas and concepts and ways of explaining it that Scripture provides. But to rule out any concept of "sin transfer" is, IMHO, to rule out several places where that concept appears clear - it is there!

--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist

Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651

 - Posted      Profile for Starlight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hi Stejjie,

I agree that just because sacrifices were never used to transfer sin, that doesn't automatically mean that Jesus' didn't transfer sin. Jesus might have worked differently to sacrifices. In fact I would say that Hebrews 10 makes clear he did work differently to sacrifices. The author argues that the practice of sacrifice wasn't successful in stopping people from sinning, as people kept sinning and then offering a sacrifice for purity. Whereas Jesus taught the doing of God's will, and by following his teachings and doing God's will we sin less, and thus Jesus was much more successful than sacrifices at reducing sin.

quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
But the NT does talk about "sin transfer" as part of what went on on the cross.

The NT talks about Jesus getting rid of sinfulness a lot. Sometimes the references to this are so brief that it is hard to tell what the authors mean in terms of how Jesus takes away our sinfulness - ie is the sinfulness removed through teaching or example or forgiveness or transfer or punishment etc? Such verses are thus consistent with almost any view of the atonement that can be imagined, but are decisive proof for none of them.

To try to work out what the NT writers really believed we have to look at their longer and clearer explanations. The NT writers regularly do provide lengthier explanations of what what Jesus has done for us. Those explanations always expand on Jesus' work in terms of Jesus bringing positive moral change through his teachings. eg:
quote:
Titus 2:1-14
"For the favor of God has appeared [ie Jesus], bringing salvation to all, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and in the present age to live lives that are self-controlled, upright, and godly, while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. He it is who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds."

Dozens of times the NT writers talk about what Jesus did for us in more than one sentence. They always refer to positive moral change that Jesus brought to us. ie that we now sin less and do right more. This is primarily why I conclude that they believed the Moral Influence view of atonement. Their primary understanding of what Jesus achieved appears to be that it led to a positive moral change in us, and it is that them that they repeat over and over again.

If PSA had anything close to that degree of support I would agree the NT writers taught it. But instead what we find that the NT writers give many short cryptic statements that are ambiguous - they could mean PSA, they could mean Moral Influence, they could mean almost anything else you can imagine. And these cryptic statements are the only support they give for PSA, because whenever they expand on them or give longer explanations or statements it is always using language of positive moral change and no in PSA terms. To me this simply shows that the NT writers didn't hold PSA and did hold a Moral Influence view.

quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
eg 2 Corinthians 5:21 (where Paul talks about Jesus being "made sin" for us), or Romans 8:3-4, where sin is condemned in the flesh of Jesus so that we may be free from condemnation. John the Baptist talks of Jesus taking on the sins of the world;

Such short cryptic passages serve well as an ink-blot test - everyone sees in the statements whatever ideas are most familiar to them. Everyone seems to think it obvious these passages must mean whatever they read them as. To give you an example of how flexible these sort of passages are, Leon Morris surveys seven standard interpretations of the meaning of the "Lamb of God" in the passage you reference from John and is unable to decide which was John's intended meaning.

quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Isn't that what the Romans 8 passage is about - that sin was transferred to Christ in a way that had not happened before, so that He bore its condemnation - not us?

Er, well, it's not what I think the passage is talking about. But I grant that if you read certain ideas into it you can get your reading out of it - that's the beauty of such short ambiguous passages. The passage doesn't mention your idea of sin being transferred... I don't see the word transferred in there nor any synonyms for it. And yet you see the passage as proof that sin was transferred? The passage doesn't state that Christ was condemned or that he bore sins condemnation... it says sin was condemned. But given certain theological presuppositions (eg the truth of PSA), I can see why you might then want to interpret it as saying that Christ was condemned, and through him, sin.

I'll share my own favoured interpretation of Rom 8:1-4, based on my understanding of Paul's theology, so you can see how it differs.
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Paul often uses "in Christ Jesus" to refer to those who follow Christ's moral teachings / imitate him. Those who do good (are "in Christ") will receive a positive final judgment from God and there will thus be no condemnation for them.
because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.
The teachings of Jesus (the 'law of the Spirit') are followed by us and they lead to obedience to God's will and a positive judgment. Whereas prior to this we were doing wrong and offending God, and generally making ourselves liable to suffer his punishment.
For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do:
Our humanity with its natural tendency to do wrong (the flesh) meant we were not successfully following the guidelines God had previous given us through the law.
by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh
Jesus came as a human, in order to teach against sin and condemn it and lead us to righteousness.
so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Now that we live following Jesus' teachings (walk... according to the Spirit) rather than our previous lives (walk not according to the flesh), we obey God's moral commandments and fulfil his requirements.

Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941

 - Posted      Profile for Stejjie   Author's homepage   Email Stejjie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hi Starlight,

Thanks for the detailed response and sorry for the delay in my own response!

Firstly, just to make it clear that I'm not arguing for PSA-or-nothing here - my own (still embryonic) view of the atonement is, as I said in my last post, that only a full range of approaches even comes close to capturing it in anything like its full glory. I'd definitely include Moral Influence as part of that - I'm just not sure that that's the full story.

I'm not sure whether the "longer passages" necessarily give us the best idea - we need to look at the picture as a whole. (I'm also not sure that the Titus passage you quote is longer than the Romans 8 passage I quoted - but there's a danger here of me getting into a proof-texting battle and I'm not sure that's good for anyone!) I'd agree that that passage supports a Moral Influence view of atonement and, as I've already said, I agree that that's part of the picture the NT presents. But, given that those verses in a longer passage instructing Titus in how to instruct others in Godly way of living, it makes sense that Paul would use that view of the atonement - "Christ died to show us a better way to live, now live in it and make sure others do". I don't think it supports that M.I. is the only view of atonement.

(Looking at it further - I must confess I'm not hugely familiar with the passage - I wonder how you'd fit the language of redemption that Paul uses in v. 14 into a purely M.I. view? This suggests that Christ, or Christ's life, was the thing that set us free from a life of sin, the payment that released us from slavery from sin. That, IMHO, seems a much stronger view of the effect of His death than M.I. would suggest, but I'd be genuinely interested in how you see it.)

With regards the Romans 8 passage, N T Wright sees it in a very similar way (in fact, it was that article that put me onto this passage and this interpretation of it). I agree, it doesn't explicitly mention "sin transfer". But:
  • It is the Father, not the Son who is portrayed as condemning sin;
  • In verse 3, it talks of condemning sin "in the flesh" - I suppose the question is who's flesh? Every commentary I can lay my hands on suggests the flesh in this phrase ("he condemned sin in the flesh") is Christ's flesh - Christ who was sent by God "in the likeness of sinful flesh" - it's in Christ's flesh that sin is condemned. Which is only possible if Christ somehow took on sin in His own flesh. Which suggests more than simply a MI reading of the passage.

Putting that short passage into a larger context, it comes just after Paul has expressed his frustration that, for all that he wants to do good, he can't - the sin that dwells within him keeps him from doing that good. Assuming Paul is talking in chapter 7 about his life now as a follower of Christ (and I know that's debatable), how does MI solve this problem? Paul presumably can see the good he wants to do, that to follow Jesus' teaching is good and right, but something else is at work. And that something else needs dealing with and I just can't see how a purely Moral Influence view of atonement does this. As you say yourself:

quote:

Our humanity with its natural tendency to do wrong (the flesh) meant we were not successfully following the guidelines God had previous given us...

How is the power of sin done away with in MI (apologies for keeping shortening this, BTW)? Yes, it sets before us the greatest way to live (I would argue the only true way to live) and PSA can easily neglect that. But it doesn't deal with the fact - which it only takes a moment's thought to recognise - that even the best Christians remain tainted by sin, that even we still muck it up and get it wrong, for all the moral influence of the cross. MI, to my understanding, has no way of dealing with that - it can only (good as this is) set forth a new way to live, it can't deal with the sin that still prevents us from doing so apart from saying "this is bad".

--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist

Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hi Starlight,
Dug this out of the CV thread. As relevant today as when it was posted?
Posted 29 May, 2007 08:18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Starlight:
[QUOTE] In PSA, Jesus' ministry fades into irrelevance as his death is suddenly elevated to an act of cosmic atonement where the spiritual sins of the universe become focused on Jesus' on the cross, where he endures infinite punishment from God on behalf of humanity. It's little wonder PSA advocates have little interest in the life, teachings and ministry of Jesus... the life of one social activist is nothing by comparison to the Event of Cosmic Atonement of The Cross.

In short, I think PSA is a made-up systematic theology of cosmic atonement which bears no relation whatsoever to Jesus' life and ministry as depicted in the gospels. [/QB][/

--------------------
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
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826

 - Posted      Profile for LutheranChik   Author's homepage   Email LutheranChik   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I find it interesting that at least a few people here seriously believe that salvation is a kind of legal transaction, and that a literal blood sacrifice is demanded by God as a payment. That's very...um...Bronze Age.

I'd steer you toward the writings of theologian Rene' Girard, whose argument is essentially that Jesus' "sacrificial" death was necessary not because God needs it but because we brutish human beings and our unevolved psyches need it. If I can find it later, I'll post a website that approaches the weekly RCL readings from a Girardian standpoint.

--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com

Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651

 - Posted      Profile for Starlight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Firstly, just to make it clear that I'm not arguing for PSA-or-nothing here - my own (still embryonic) view of the atonement is, as I said in my last post, that only a full range of approaches even comes close to capturing it in anything like its full glory. I'd definitely include Moral Influence as part of that - I'm just not sure that that's the full story.

Okay. When I first came to the study of the atonement, I simply wasn't sure at all what to believe and so all views appeared to me to be equally valid (apart from the MI view which I had, ironically, ruled out in advance).

quote:
I'm not sure whether the "longer passages" necessarily give us the best idea - we need to look at the picture as a whole.
Absolutely. My point was that too often I see people point to one word or two words or half a sentence and they say "see, that word proves my favourite and complicated theory of the atonement that it takes me two pages to explain, but because the Bible writers wrote that one word it means they endorse my entire two page theory." People love filling in the blanks with their own views, and so I find it helpful to initially limit the focus to what the Bible authors actually say as opposed to what a reader might imagine they imply.

quote:
I don't think it supports that M.I. is the only view of atonement.
Agreed, and it is quite complicated to "prove" that MI is the only view of atonement. I would argue:
(1) MI has extensive evidence throughout the NT.
(2) None of the other views have anything close to the amount of attestation that MI has in the NT.
(3) The MI view is consistent as a paradigm in and of itself.
(4) The others views of atonement all have serious logical / biblical / theological problems
(5) MI can make sense of all the material in the NT and can explain all the language used regarding the atonement without the need for other paradigms.
(6) The writings of the early Church in the centuries following the NT suggest that the MI view held alone was the standard Christian view of the atonement, which implies its likely that the NT writers also held only this view.

But all of those require extensive study and argumentation to prove. Point 6 alone deals with ~20,000 pages of early Church material.

quote:
I wonder how you'd fit the language of redemption that Paul uses in v. 14 into a purely M.I. view? This suggests that Christ, or Christ's life, was the thing that set us free from a life of sin, the payment that released us from slavery from sin. That, IMHO, seems a much stronger view of the effect of His death than M.I. would suggest, but I'd be genuinely interested in how you see it.
In the MI view, the purpose of everything Christ did was to set us free from a life of sinful behaviour and lead us to a life of righteous behaviour. For that purpose he taught, gave examples, formed the church movement around himself, stood up to opposition, and was killed for it, dying a martyrs death. Everything Christ did in life and death was done for our sakes to lead us from sinfulness to righteousness. Therefore it follows that "Christ gave himself for us that he might redeem [rescue / release] us from all iniquity and purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds".

quote:
It is the Father, not the Son who is portrayed as condemning sin;
That's a possibility not a certainty. The verse is talking about the Son acting as the Father's agent in order to carry out the Father's will. It is thus ambiguous which actions are the Sons and which are the Fathers'. I don't see any problems for MI with reading it as the Father's action though... so long as you read "condemn" as, well, meaning "condemn" and not meaning "acted in judgment by dishing out punishment upon Christ on the cross". (ie, so to paraphrase it in an MI way: "God condemned sin in the flesh by sending his son in the likeness of sinful flesh to deal with sin".)

quote:
In verse 3, it talks of condemning sin "in the flesh" - I suppose the question is who's flesh? Every commentary I can lay my hands on suggests the flesh in this phrase ("he condemned sin in the flesh") is Christ's flesh - Christ who was sent by God "in the likeness of sinful flesh" - it's in Christ's flesh that sin is condemned. Which is only possible if Christ somehow took on sin in His own flesh. Which suggests more than simply a MI reading of the passage.
For anyone who believes PSA / who believes Paul teaches PSA, it makes intuitive sense to read the passage as referring to PSA. Can the passage be read in other ways? Of course. "Flesh" is one of the most flexible words in Paul's vocabulary and undeniably gets used to mean quite a number of different things by him at different times. So can it's meaning be pinned down here absolutely? Of course not. Everyone will thus interpret the ambiguity here in a way consistent with their own theology / what they think Paul teaches elsewhere.

quote:
Putting that short passage into a larger context, it comes just after Paul has expressed his frustration that, for all that he wants to do good, he can't - the sin that dwells within him keeps him from doing that good. Assuming Paul is talking in chapter 7 about his life now as a follower of Christ (and I know that's debatable), how does MI solve this problem?
As you seem to have guessed, I wouldn't read Ch 7 as Paul's life as a follower of Christ. Inability to do the good that one wants is an illustration of the pre-Christ life, which is solved by Christ, which is the point Paul is making. I think Paul's idea in Rom 7 is that the law says "X is bad", but that such a statement doesn't empower the individual to change, it merely makes clearer their bad behaviour. Paul sees a contrast to this in Christ's teaching and examples, his founding of the church to support people, and of his sending of the Spirit, as Paul sees these as empowering change rather than merely setting the rules.

quote:
How is the power of sin done away with in MI (apologies for keeping shortening this, BTW)? Yes, it sets before us the greatest way to live (I would argue the only true way to live) and PSA can easily neglect that. But it doesn't deal with the fact - which it only takes a moment's thought to recognise - that even the best Christians remain tainted by sin, that even we still muck it up and get it wrong, for all the moral influence of the cross. MI, to my understanding, has no way of dealing with that - it can only (good as this is) set forth a new way to live, it can't deal with the sin that still prevents us from doing so apart from saying "this is bad".
Humans will always inevitably make some mistakes and muck some things up and get some things wrong. MI doesn't require or demand perfection as a standard. The power of sin as a force that dominates peoples lives is not that they 'occasionally' do the wrong thing. If people only occasionally did the wrong thing then there wouldn't be a problem. MI is about the radical change that comes to peoples lives when they turn away from their patterns of sinful behaviour that dominated their lives and commit themselves to following the teachings of Jesus, focusing on his examples, aided by the church movement that Jesus founded, and empowered by the Holy Spirit.


Jamat,
I'm not quite sure what the point of your quoting a few sentences of a lengthy post from the middle of a lengthy discussion from 5 years ago is. I still think PSA is false; and I still think it has drawbacks that come from focusing solely on the death of Jesus, rather than giving the primary focus to the life and teachings of Jesus as the gospels do.

Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
In PSA, Jesus' ministry fades into irrelevance as his death is suddenly elevated to an act of cosmic atonement where the spiritual sins of the universe become focused on Jesus' on the cross, where he endures infinite punishment from God on behalf of humanity. It's little wonder PSA advocates have little interest in the life, teachings and ministry of Jesus... the life of one social activist is nothing by comparison to the Event of Cosmic Atonement of The Cross.

In short, I think PSA is a made-up systematic theology of cosmic atonement which bears no relation whatsoever to Jesus' life and ministry as depicted in the gospels.

Do you still affirm:
[*] An emphasis on Christ's death infers the irrelevance of his ministry?
[*] Christ was primarily a social activist?
[*] That believers in PSA do not value the lessons of his life in the gospels
[*] That PSA is made up theology which cannot be justified in scripture; IOW, Christ did not give his righteousness as a sacrifice in exchange for our sinfulness.

To affirm those things, particularly the 4th, seems to me to deny the life-changing power of the gospel. In my experience those who do that do so only because they have not yet discovered it. Those who teach it are propunding 'another' gospel. Gal 1:6-8.

The gospel Paul preached is indicated pretty clearly in Gal 3:13 "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law being made a curse for us."

Again, in a nutshell, this states that Chrst is the annointed and sinless one. He redeems, IOW pays a price for us (humanity) who would other wise have to stand on our own merits in keeping God's standard of righteousness, and he did this by becoming a curse or by allowing God's curse to settle on him. It is a PSA gospel.If you deny it, then you will one day need to stand before the Lord and answer for your own sins. Good luck with that.

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

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651

 - Posted      Profile for Starlight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jamat,

I'm not quite sure why you're obsessed with those particular sentences from years ago. But yes, I haven't changed my views in any major way and still think that the NT writers neither believed or taught PSA. I think PSA was invented around the time of the Reformation and that many people mistakenly thought it was scriptural. I can see why they made the mistake of thinking it was taught in scripture - many passages in the NT are ambiguous or unclear and it is easy to misread a text that was written in another language an in another culture. I do think an emphasis on PSA tends to result in a mistaken focus, and leads people to focus too much on the death of Jesus and neglect his life, his teachings and his resurrection. Clearly you believe strongly in PSA and think it is the gospel and think that it is what the NT teaches. I don't.

Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086

 - Posted      Profile for Hairy Biker   Email Hairy Biker   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I find it interesting that at least a few people here seriously believe that salvation is a kind of legal transaction, and that a literal blood sacrifice is demanded by God as a payment. That's very...um...Bronze Age.

You should get out more! It's a very commonly held belief. I even heard Ken Costa recently compare the cross to God giving us 10 million US Dollars in exchange for the 10 million Zimbabwean Dollars that represent our sinful lives - he even waved a 10 million dollar note in the air to illustrate the point. Not just a legal transaction - it was a financial transaction!

--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst

Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941

 - Posted      Profile for Stejjie   Author's homepage   Email Stejjie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Will post more fully later, but just realised I've stuffed up the link to the N T Wright article in my last post: it should be this.

--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist

Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I agree strongly that any understanding of the atonement is partial - PSA is NOT the only way to take it. Having said that, one of its strengths is the fact that it offers justice to the victims of sin: all sin IS punished. MI offers nothing to the victim - it DEMANDS that they forgive. That's a denial of true justice; God's saying to the victims of crimes 'Ah, shut up your whinging and forgive them.' At least that's how it strikes me. This MUST logically lead to total pacifism - you don't call the police even if you see someone being beaten to death in front of you. This is a logically consistent position - but not one that has any morality to it.

Can I ask for some of the passages which people claim point to MI. I'm really not finding any which do so for me...

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
PSA is just like Moral Influence.

The only difference is that there is a transaction between God and the Son in PSA.

PSA adherents are still called to follow Christ's teachings in response to his Grace.

Moral Influence adherents just don't require the transaction.

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

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I think PSA was invented around the time of the Reformation
Justin Martyr c100-165 Dialogue with Trypho
"If then the Father of allwished his Christ for the whole human family to take upon him the curses of all.."

--------------------
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
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It is a PSA gospel.If you deny it, then you will one day need to stand before the Lord and answer for your own sins. Good luck with that.

I think this is dangerous talk. At the risk of over-simplifying, Jesus said 'Follow me'. Jamat, you seem to be changing what God requires of us to 'Correctly understand what Jesus' death and resurrection achieved in terms of making us right with God'.

Even if PSA is the correct way of understanding how humanity has been made, or enabled to be made, right with God, where does the idea come from that we must understand it in order to be saved. I think instead there's a heck of an emphasis in the NT on right behaviour as the proof of our faith.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It is a PSA gospel.If you deny it, then you will one day need to stand before the Lord and answer for your own sins. Good luck with that.

I think this is dangerous talk. At the risk of over-simplifying, Jesus said 'Follow me'. Jamat, you seem to be changing what God requires of us to 'Correctly understand what Jesus' death and resurrection achieved in terms of making us right with God'.

Even if PSA is the correct way of understanding how humanity has been made, or enabled to be made, right with God, where does the idea come from that we must understand it in order to be saved. I think instead there's a heck of an emphasis in the NT on right behaviour as the proof of our faith.

Imagine the eternal consequences of finding out too late what the Gospel actually is. Now that is dangerous.

--------------------
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
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651

 - Posted      Profile for Starlight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Can I ask for some of the passages which people claim point to MI. I'm really not finding any which do so for me...

The four gospels are MI in a rather direct kind of way. The gospels spend a lot of space reporting the teachings and doings of Jesus, which leads us to learn from the teachings and examples of Jesus, which is MI.

However, presumably you are thinking of MI as a systematic theology of the atonement. I think that MI as a systematic theory begins with the claim that the criteria of God's final judgement to "heaven"/"hell" is according to whether our deeds are good or evil. The NT contains about 30 passages which mention this final judgement in any level of detail, and they pretty much unanimously attest that the criteria is whether the things we have done are good or bad. A few of the clearest statements include:

quote:
"The hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and will come out – those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation." John 5:28-29

“Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me. … You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” Then they also will answer, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?” Then he will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. Matt 25:31-46

For he will repay according to each one's deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. Romans 2:6-8

I would argue that almost no points of systematic theology are as clear in the NT than the teaching of a final judgment according to deeds. It is stated in virtually every book in the NT, and many times in some. Growing up as a Baptist I was taught that at the final judgment it would be our faith that mattered. Yet the extensive NT depictions of final judgement don't depict a judgement scene where faith is the criteria of judgement. I was also taught that though our works would also be judged, that this second judgement wasn't important and would merely result in finite rewards (size of your crown / mansion in heaven or suchlike) and didn't really matter. The NT again does not support this notion of two judgements, and at many times directly asserts that the final judgment to heaven/hell is by one's deeds. I found it a very instructive exercise when I read through the entire NT noting down every single reference to the final judgment... I was quite surprised to find such a lot teaching that the final judgement would be according to deeds, and that it was so obviously taught.

In a sense, once we accept the teaching of final judgment according to deeds we have implicitly endorsed some type of MI and rejected most Protestant versions of PSA. If it is what the individual has to do that matters then we ought to be making a moral effort to live righteously, and any notion of relying on Christ's finished work completed on the cross on our behalf is out the window.

Given a final judgment according to our deeds, the question arises: How can we do deeds that are good enough? The answer the NT gives is by following the example of Christ and imitating him. Through imitating Jesus we can live lives pleasing to God, as he did, and receive rewards from God as he did:
quote:
“Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus… he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death – even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him…” Phil 2:5-9.

“I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.” Phil 3:10--11

“Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness on the Day of Judgment, because as he is, so are we in this world.” 1 John 4:17

“everyone who does what is right is righteous, just as He is righteous.” 1 John 3:7

Paul, John, and Peter all often use language of imitating Jesus, speaking variously of clothing oneself in Christ, of patterning our lives after Christ's, of Christ's spirit or Christ's likeness forming within us, of being part of Christ's family, of being 'in Christ', of sharing Jesus' life or his death. I particularly find the verse 1 John 4:17 compelling on this subject: "Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness on the Day of Judgment, because as he is, so are we in this world." It is our imitation of Christ that gives us confidence for passing God's judgment... if that isn't MI then I don't know what is.

The NT contains extensive moral exhortations, as the authors appeal to their readers to do good and refrain from evil. I'm sure that's news to nobody. However, my Church upbringing never dwelled on just how much of it there was in the NT. There's heaps. Some NT letters are virtually nothing else other than encouragement to live good lives. If we make the general assumption that NT writers wrote about what was important to them and spent the most time on things that they felt were most important, then we have to believe that they thought living good lives and refraining from doing evil were very very important indeed, more important than anything else. Given MI, that makes perfect sense. Given PSA, it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. We could explain a small amount of it in PSA by saying that God now wants us to live good lives, but the volume dedicated to the topic of moral improvement by the NT writers seems an order of magnitude more than what PSA might lead us to expect.

More definitive though, is to look at why the NT authors gave these statements. ie what motivations appear in the text as reasons given for moral behaviour? Typical PSA teaching would lead us to expect no verses that exhort moral conduct in connection with final judgment. We would not expect to find the idea of a positive final judgment used as the motivation or reward for good conduct. Whereas MI would predict the exact opposite. We would expect to find the NT writers making strong connections between encouraging their readers to live good lives and the concept of passing the final judgment. And that is exactly what we do find:
quote:
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers – none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Cor 6:9-10

Do you not know that in a race the runners all compete, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win it. Athletes exercise self-control in all things; they do it to receive a perishable garland, but we an imperishable one. 1 Cor 9:24-25

Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow. If you sow to your own flesh, you will reap corruption from the flesh; but if you sow to the spirit, you will reap eternal life from the spirit. So let us not grow weary in doing what is right, for we will reap at harvest time, if we do not give up. Gal 6:9-10

Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children, and live in love… But fornication and impurity of any kind, or greed, must not even be mentioned among you, as is proper among saints… Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure person, or one who is greedy (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes on those who are disobedient. Eph 5:1-6

One type of moral exhortation that turns up again and again in the NT is the exhortation to love. Whenever the NT authors give a statement regarding what the absolutely most important thing is, it is always love. It is "the greatest commandment", "the royal law", it "fulfils the law", there is "no law against it", it is "the greatest" of all things, it is "the message you have heard from the beginning". There are at least 27 direct statements to "love" others in the NT, and many more passages that strongly advocate love. Such a focus makes sense in a MI viewpoint: If loving others is what its all about, then it makes a lot of sense to emphasize love so heavily. In PSA, it is not clear why love should be such a major theme - sure God loves us and demonstrates his love through Christ, and sure we should all love one another more, but faith seems a much more important virtue to have for it is not our love that saves us but our faith. PSA thus struggles to explain the emphasis in the NT on the importance of love, while MI explains it nicely - the message they have heard from the beginning has been to love one another precisely because that is the message.
quote:
This is the message you have heard from the beginning: That we should love one another. 1 John 3:11

“And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.” 1 Cor 13:13

God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them. Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness on the day of judgement, because as he is, so are we in this world. 1 John 4:16-17


Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've not completely abandoned PSA, Jamat - truth be told, I've been so steeped in evangelicalism in the past that I find it difficult to conceive of the atonement in other ways ... whilst taking on board insights from the other atonement theories in a multi-faceted way as Mudfrog suggests.

I think you can make a case for it from scripture and even from isolated comments from some of the Fathers, but the reality is that it wasn't the dominant view until after the Reformation - and even then only among a subset of the reformed churches - notably evangelicalism.

The Reformed tradition is wider (and deeper [Razz] ) than that. Just as the Gospel is. Even if PSA were taken to be the dominant theory, the Gospel would still be more than that.

It's very reductionist to suggest otherwise. Most moderate PSA-ers accept that.

--------------------
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
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jamat - but do you see my point, that you seem to be saying it's necessary for us to have a right understanding how Jesus saves us in order to receive that salvation? If this, then what other doctrines do we need a correct understanding of in order to be saved? How about the Trinity; after all, if I have a faulty view of the Trinity then perhaps I haven't truly appreciated what it meant for part of the Godhead to be killed as punishment in my place.

Starlight - I wonder if you're conflating two things that should be kept separate. You talk about our deeds being the thing on which we will be judged, and I think you have a point.

But your take seems to be that it's the deeds which save us, am I right? What about if we are saved through a true, genuine acceptance of what Jesus achieved through his death and resurrection (whether we understand that in PSA, Christus Victor or some other terms) and our deeds are evidence of that acceptance?

All the exhortations in the New Testament regarding Godly behaviour are about us living in the light of our redeemed status. Bringing in a slightly different angle, we don't instantly become consistent do-ers of good deeds (far from it!). We have to work at our moral transformation, as per Romans 12:1-2 - 'Let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think', or 'be transformed by the renewing of your mind'. Salvation is a life, in the words of Dallas Willard; it's not a transaction or a target.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It is a PSA gospel.If you deny it, then you will one day need to stand before the Lord and answer for your own sins. Good luck with that.

I think this is dangerous talk. At the risk of over-simplifying, Jesus said 'Follow me'. Jamat, you seem to be changing what God requires of us to 'Correctly understand what Jesus' death and resurrection achieved in terms of making us right with God'.

Even if PSA is the correct way of understanding how humanity has been made, or enabled to be made, right with God, where does the idea come from that we must understand it in order to be saved. I think instead there's a heck of an emphasis in the NT on right behaviour as the proof of our faith.

Imagine the eternal consequences of finding out too late what the Gospel actually is. Now that is dangerous.
Yeah, like what if you are wrong? Possibly scary? Are you going to go "all in" on making your educated bet on correct dogma being the crux of your salvation?

Or are you going to go "all in" with humble trust that, however it was accomplished, Jesus Christ lived and died for us just for the sake of his grace, and he will forgive our ignorance if we ask it?

I'm going with the latter.

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Imagine the eternal consequences of finding out too late what the Gospel actually is. Now that is dangerous.

Now that is scaremongering.

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

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

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Imagine the eternal consequences of finding out too late what the Gospel actually is. Now that is dangerous.

[Killing me] [Killing me]

If that was the case - God would have made it clearer.

Unless of course - he's a bastard. And is petty and hateful.

Which contradicts the bible of course.

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

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Imagine the eternal consequences of finding out too late what the Gospel actually is. Now that is dangerous.

Now that is scaremongering.
It's called power Boogie.

But it's not power made perfect in weakness.

Only the bold inherit the earth after all.

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

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you Starlight for a fascinating attempt to torpedo the entire Christian tradition on the basis of the New Testament - a line of argument I haven't seen before. I don't think it's consistent with many other verses in the New Testament - most obviously Jesus' promise to the repentant thief on the cross and the comment
quote:
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast.
Eph 2:8,9
Nice try though, and to be fair, you are making a good point about the need for works somewhere in the story.

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To be fair to Starlight, Ender's Shadow, he doesn't appear to be debunking the ENTIRE Christian tradition, but only a particular, and arguably, narrow, take on it.

I would suggest, though, that all Christian traditions, whether RC, Protestant or Orthodox DO assert that we are saved by grace through faith - but the RCs and Orthodox tend to see it an more synergistic way - not in the bald, and dare I say it, rather 'Scholastic' and forensic/juridical way that many Protestants understand these things.

I don't see how what Starlight wrote undermined what Christ said to the thief on the cross, nor would any RC or Orthodox people that I've come across ...

--------------------
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
Niteowl

Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841

 - Posted      Profile for Niteowl   Email Niteowl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Imagine the eternal consequences of finding out too late what the Gospel actually is. Now that is dangerous.

Now that is scaremongering.
It's been a tool in many an evangelist's toolkit. Not saying it's right as it's the revelation of the love of God that leads us to repentance, not fear. After decades of faith I'm far less certain of my knowing everything and being right than I was many years ago. I do, however, have my absolute faith in God intact.

--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare

Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651

 - Posted      Profile for Starlight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Thank you Starlight for a fascinating attempt to torpedo the entire Christian tradition on the basis of the New Testament

[Confused]
I'm guessing from that statement that you're not very familiar with the history of what Christians have taught over the centuries. The teaching of a final judgment according to works was the universal teaching of the Christian church for its first 1500 years. It's really strong in the early Church Fathers, it's in the Athanasian Creed, its right through medieval Roman Catholic Christianity. It wasn't until the Reformation that any Christians rejected it, attempted as they did "to torpedo the entire Christian tradition on the basis of the New Testament" as you put it, which was kind of the whole point of the Reformation. Likewise the teaching of Moral Influence was universal for centuries following the NT. It easily dominated the first two hundred years of post-biblical Christianity, and from about 350AD onward it continued to be taught strongly but now in conjunction with other views such as Ransom from Satan and Recapitulation. It wasn't until the 11th century that MI was challenged, by Anselm and his advocates, though many at that time rose to defend it. It was really in 16th century in the Reformation that MI really got hit, as most of the Reformers believed in a novel view of the atonement called PSA and they didn't see any place for the historic teaching of MI. So they torpedoed it on the grounds that they had no interest in Christian tradition, only in what the NT said. Unfortunately, IMO, they were quite wrong about what the NT said. Of course, the Eastern Orthodox Church was unaffected by Anselm and the Reformation, so they still today continue to teach the doctrines of a final judgment by works and a Moral Influence view of the atonement... as they have for the last 2000 years.

quote:
I don't think it's consistent with many other verses in the New Testament - most obviously Jesus' promise to the repentant thief on the cross and the comment

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast.Eph 2:8,9

The Moral Influence view emphasises repentance and positive moral change. If the world's worst person sincerely repented and really resolved to mend their ways, God would welcome it, and them. The 'thief' on the cross has often been used as a stereotypical example of deathbed repentance.

As far as interpreting Paul goes, there are many different understandings of how the theological terms "grace", "faith" and "works" should be understood, and what the Greek words Paul uses here really mean etc. I commend to your attention the recent "New Perspective on Paul", which is the name given to the arguments many recent scholars are having about how to interpret these words and others in Paul's writings. Also I note you omitted Paul's next sentence, which looks awfully MI related... "For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life." (Eph 2:10)

Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941

 - Posted      Profile for Stejjie   Author's homepage   Email Stejjie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
[Confused]
I'm guessing from that statement that you're not very familiar with the history of what Christians have taught over the centuries. The teaching of a final judgment according to works was the universal teaching of the Christian church for its first 1500 years. It's really strong in the early Church Fathers, it's in the Athanasian Creed, its right through medieval Roman Catholic Christianity. It wasn't until the Reformation that any Christians rejected it, attempted as they did "to torpedo the entire Christian tradition on the basis of the New Testament" as you put it, which was kind of the whole point of the Reformation.

I'd have to say [Confused] to your response, too. Given that I can turn to the relevant section in Alister McGrath's "Christian Theology: An Introduction" and find a whole section explaining how Augustine (hardly a marginal figure) emphasised Jesus' teaching that "apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5) and is quoted as saying this:

quote:
But God... even when we were dead through our sins, raised us up to life with Christ, by whose grace we are saved. But this grace of Christ, without which neither infants nor grown persons can be saved, is not bestowed as a reward for merits, but is given freely, which is why it is called grace
From "De natura et gratia", p. 447 of McGrath, 3rd edition

McGrath goes on to state that my the Middle Ages, it "had been generally agreed" that "Salvation is an act of God's grace, in which sinners are enabled to gain something which would otherwise lie completely beyond them" and that "sinners cannot earn salvation" (pp. 452-453).

Given this, it hardly seems tenable that it was a "universal teaching of the church" that works, and not faith, were what mattered.

After conversion, yes, works are important, vital - I'd never claim belief or faith affected anything less than the whole of our lives and calls us, in response to God's grace through Christ, to live in obedience to God. This is the thrust, I think of Romans 12:1-2 ("In view of God's mercy..." and the Ephesians passage you and Ender's Shadow were debating: Yes we were "created in Christ Jesus for good works", but this is surely after conversion, otherwise there would be no point in the preceding passages that ES quoted with their emphasis that "by grace you have been saved".

[ 16. April 2012, 13:25: Message edited by: Stejjie ]

--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist

Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941

 - Posted      Profile for Stejjie   Author's homepage   Email Stejjie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It is a PSA gospel.If you deny it, then you will one day need to stand before the Lord and answer for your own sins. Good luck with that.

I think this is dangerous talk. At the risk of over-simplifying, Jesus said 'Follow me'. Jamat, you seem to be changing what God requires of us to 'Correctly understand what Jesus' death and resurrection achieved in terms of making us right with God'.

Even if PSA is the correct way of understanding how humanity has been made, or enabled to be made, right with God, where does the idea come from that we must understand it in order to be saved. I think instead there's a heck of an emphasis in the NT on right behaviour as the proof of our faith.

Imagine the eternal consequences of finding out too late what the Gospel actually is. Now that is dangerous.
As you can see, I've been arguing in favour of some form of PSA (though I think it's all too often badly expressed and leaves out any mention of God's love - and I think it's only part of the story). But where on earth in the whole of Scripture does Christ say that salvation depends upon a correct theological understanding of the cross? A theological exam at the pearly gates is the opposite of grace, surely?!

--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist

Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enders Shadow:
I don't think it's consistent with many other verses in the New Testament - most obviously Jesus' promise to the repentant thief on the cross

It's important to remember that Jesus was a Jew, steeped in His own culture, and living entirely from within it. To a Jew, a sincere act of repentance is enough to restore the divine image in which we were created, which is marred by our sin. We have every reason to believe that the penitent thief spoke from his heart in his last hours of earthly life, so his welcome to paradise is entirely consistent with Starlight's arguements.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Thank you Starlight for a fascinating attempt to torpedo the entire Christian tradition on the basis of the New Testament

[Confused]
I'm guessing from that statement that you're not very familiar with the history of what Christians have taught over the centuries. The teaching of a final judgment according to works was the universal teaching of the Christian church for its first 1500 years. It's really strong in the early Church Fathers, it's in the Athanasian Creed, its right through medieval Roman Catholic Christianity. It wasn't until the Reformation that any Christians rejected it, attempted as they did "to torpedo the entire Christian tradition on the basis of the New Testament" as you put it, which was kind of the whole point of the Reformation.

We're in danger of talking past each other here, because we're referring to different things. The doctrine of the atonement is concerned with God's forgiveness of sins: that this is offered seems unambiguously clear from 1 John 1:9:

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

The question of the basis of judgement is a different one.
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:

Likewise the teaching of Moral Influence was universal for centuries following the NT. It easily dominated the first two hundred years of post-biblical Christianity, and from about 350AD onward it continued to be taught strongly but now in conjunction with other views such as Ransom from Satan and Recapitulation. It wasn't until the 11th century that MI was challenged, by Anselm and his advocates, though many at that time rose to defend it.

Tertullian argues that baptism washes of all sins. Origen was discussing the issue of ransom being paid to the devil, and this is a continuing discussion throughout the centuries. Anselm is reacting to the ransom theory, which he regards as unsatisfactory, with his Satisfaction theory; it's his contemporary Abelard who is usually credited with the teaching of the cross being exemplary, though he also supports ransom to some extent.

All this comes from the material I've been reading for the academic essay I've just finished on the Atonement - I can send you a copy if you want all the references if you PM an email address. One of these is the McGrath, which has already been quoted. Can you provide some similar authorities on whom you depend?

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
the payment that released us from slavery from sin.

The very mention of payment implies a belief in either ransom (Augustine), satisfaction (Anselm) or substitution (the Protestant reformers). I don't believe any of those models. God became man so that man can become God (Iranaeus). Christ's dual nature, human and divine, is one "not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by the taking of the Manhood into God." (Creed of St Athanasius).

Our inclination to sin is a malady that requires healing, rather than a transgression that requires punishment. Christ will judge all people exclusively on the basis of how they have served him by serving each other. If salvation is seen as a process of growing in godliness (theosis), then it follows that it's an ongoing process, not something that happens once in a revivalist meeting. PSA has been accepted doctrine by a small percentage of the world's Christians, for the last quarter of Christian history. It has no pedigree worth defending and is, IMO an abhorent caricature of how a God of love would order His creation.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  9  10  11 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools