Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seán D:


Boopy - yes it does sound too woolly I suspect but can't be sure that maybe it would boil down to a difference in our understanding of the Bible's authority - you seem to regard the model of atonement you believe in as something which answers the questions you ask, whereas I prefer to think (perahps misguidedly!) that I am letting the Bible set the agenda. It tells me what the problem is, as well as the solution. Without revelation I wouldn't even know the problem!! Not that your view is unbiblical, or not influenced by the Bible - far from it. But because the Bible talks about the righteous, loving anger of God I can't ignore that the atonement must somehow also deal with this, as well as subjectively transforming humans. Both/and.

---

Yes, spot on; I think we probably do have different views of the bible's authority which leads us to different conclusions. Thanks for your gracious contributions which have helped me to formulate my thoughts. I'll stick with the woolly model though!

[Edited for quote UBB.]

[ 14. May 2004, 00:51: Message edited by: Tortuf ]

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seán D:
[The problem lies in connecting the two. Yes it is penal (Jesus suffers punishment for sin), yes it is substitutionary (Jesus makes peace with God because we are not able to). But penal substitution connects these two ideas in a way which I don't believe the Bible does, by making it Jesus being punished instead of us. It is much more biblical to say that Jesus bears our sin and thus is punished as a sinner. It is the conglomeration of these ideas I object to, not the holding of these ideas in tension.

<snip>

Love and justice meet together on the cross. No argument there. The question is, did it take place by God punishing Jesus instead of punishing us, so that he didn't punish us? The answer to that for me is no.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zwingli*:


The short answer is, all sins are ultimately against God and him alone. No matter how much I sin against you I cannot take anything from you (whether I take your life or your possessions or anything else) that God has not given you and which he is not free to take away if he so desires. In essence we deserve nothing more than eternal destruction; anything more is a blessing from God which he has every right to take away whenever he chooses.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

But that is the great thing about the incarnation, passion, resurrection, penetecost. God, as a Trinity displayed his humility, his passionate love for us, AND his awesome holiness and justice. Yes Jesus, as such, did the humble bit, if I can put it like that without blasphemy. But Jesus is in some sense God the Father humbling himself. God humbles himself, but does not, as Trinity, make himself less than he is. Because this would be a failure to display his true glory in the world.

---

quote:

---

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death--
even death on a cross!

---

quote:

---

The just and gentle chosen one would triumph o'er the fall,
And conquer, by His own defeat,
And win by losing all.

Michael Card, "Vicit Agnus Noster" (c) Sparrow Music

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:


As to your second point, well, of course Jesus is now glorified with the Father. But is He any more glorious as pantokrator than as suffering servant, or is He pantokrator because He is, as He was, suffering servant, and that is how the Father chooses to rule the universe? What if "weakness" really is strength, and not merely a means to strength, if Jesus was exalted to the highest place, not as a reward for His humility, but as a consequence of His humility, because that is how the universe is made? Would that not be a paradox worthy of the God of the paradox.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

The short answer is, all sins are ultimately against God and him alone. No matter how much I sin against you I cannot take anything from you (whether I take your life or your possessions or anything else) that God has not given you and which he is not free to take away if he so desires. In essence we deserve nothing more than eternal destruction; anything more is a blessing from God which he has every right to take away whenever he chooses.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:


Ideas like this, plus the implied subordinationationism of "separating" Jesus as the Christ from the Father are getting close to the impression of a cold, uncaring God. One can say "For him to defend his glory is love" all one wants, but all this implication that God does not stand in relationship with either Godself or with his creation give the impression that his primary (definitionally self-decided) raision d'etre is to Be Glorious rather than to be in relationship.

---

quote:

---

If he were human, we might start diagnosing this God as a narcissist.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

I'm not even sure that one needs to adopt a Calvinist position to explain PSA - the Evangelical Arminian position would be, as I understand it, that God knew in advance who would turn to him, and punished Jesus for their sins in advance. Not being party to that knowledge we proclaim the Gospel to all, knowing that the death of Christ is completely effective for all who will trust repent. That's not a position that I feel particularly happy with myself, but I can see why people hold it.

---

quote:

---

But that is the great thing about the incarnation, passion, resurrection, penetecost. God, as a Trinity displayed his humility, his passionate love for us, AND his awesome holiness and justice.

---

You missed the Ascension .

Yes, I've been waiting for those things to be mentioned. I think that one of my biggest problems with PSA is the fact that the Resurrection seems (in the explanations I've heard of it at least) to be tacked on the end as a demonstration that Jesus' death worked but have no significance in and of itself. Whereas to me the death and resurrection are inseparable and the resurrection is integral to the act of atonement. Death's sting is removed by the resurrection rather than just at the cross as Lep wrote:

quote:

---

Death has lost its sting at the cross - eternal life lies beyond it, but it is the final enemy to be defeated.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
But to the extent that I understand either of them, they are pretty much the same: both say that someone had to die to pay the price of our sins and it was Jesus.

Am I missing something?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Sorry, who has been separating Christ from God? I have been at pains to show that actually my understanding of PSA is rooted in strong doctrine of the Trinity - Jesus IS God the Father humbling himself - as I've said before. Who is this criticism levelled at?

---

quote:

---

v6 also makes clear that there is a fundamental difference between Jesus and God - as Jesus did not grasp "equality with God". As such there must have been some way in which some part of the godhead made itself less than another part, while the other part remained glorified. If you see what I mean.

---

quote:

---

God is not human. It would be narcissistic for a human to behave that way, it is not for God - this is a key part of his transcendence.

---

quote:

---

The anthropomorphism you are using is extremely unehlpful,

---

quote:

---

If indeed, as you are suggesting, you do not see the prime purpose of the Gospel, and creation as being the mainfestation of God's glory, then (as well as being a bit confusing, because you agreed with this when I said it before) we are indeed poles apart - for this will always be my bottom line.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by GraceCantsin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
But to the extent that I understand either of them, they are pretty much the same: both say that someone had to die to pay the price of our sins and it was Jesus.

Am I missing something?

---

From a mystical viewpoint, Jesus our sacrificial Lamb is always dying for our sins.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GraceCantsin:
From a mystical viewpoint, Jesus our sacrificial Lamb is always dying for our sins.

---

This rather flies in the face of the the idea of Christ's once-for-all sacrifice for the human race, though.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

The thing is, what if there was _no_ sacrifice as a consequence of sin? If the wages of sin are not death? While the forgiveness aspect of that seems positive, it seems it might destroy any fundamental morality of the universe.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

I most certainly do believe that creation is a manifestation of God's glory. What I think we disagree profoundly on is what "a manifestation of God's glory" is.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
That doesn't sound like an Arminian position to me. The talk of God knowing in advance etc means it sounds like a Calvinist justification for evangelism (in fact it is remarkably similar to justifications I have heard Calvinists give). The point of Arminianism is that salvation is open to all. As Wesley wrote (in Father, whose everlasting love hymn 520 in Hymns and Psalms)

For those who will not come to him
The ransom of his life was paid.

---

quote:

---

The world (and us as part of the world) is a mess as a consequence of our sin and God loves the world and is redeeming it and the heart of that redemption is Jesus' death and resurrection.

---

quote:

---

Equally, after the posting on this thread, I'm left with the impression that our salvation could have been achieved by Jesus appearing fully grown and being killed (possibly by the devil). What role does the incarnation have in the atonement under PSA? Is it just that Jesus needed to be sinless?

Carys

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The alternative is, of course to say, that God didn't know, or that the atonement is effective for all regardless, but then ISTM your choices are open theism - God doesn't know the future, or universalism, which, as Grey Face as said, is hardly consonant with the Biblical call to repentance.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

You see, I have great difficulty with the idea that God should commend a certain attitude to life, of humility, forgiveness, mercy, even justice, should enjoin us to pursue these things in imitation of Him, and yet behave in a manner that denies this. A right act is a right act, whether the act-or is God or a man. Right and wrong don't change their meaning between man and God. If that is anthropomorphic, then I plead guilty, but would say in mitigation that I don't see what other means God would want us to employ to understand Him. Jesus was a man, we are told to imitate Him.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
but then ISTM your choices are open theism - God doesn't know the future, or universalism, which, as Grey Face as said, is hardly consonant with the Biblical call to repentance.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Anyway, to get back to the topic, in the case of PSA, I am not sure this provides any problem. It gives us the model of "forgive at great cost to yourself". It gives us the model "seek justice". It gives us the model "seek the display of God's awesome character"

---

quote:

---

I think, you think, that I am saying PSA would justify us acting for our own glory, to vindicate our own character. No.
Only for God's glory, and that does rest in appreciating his "otherness" from us. And that is just self evident to me. That is the wonder of the incarnation, that God, WHO IS UNIQUE, became man.

---

quote:

---

If we think PSA is a justification for us to forgive only in a way that protect OUR integrity, then we fail to appreciate the ultimate importance of God's integrity, and the ultimate insignificance of ours. And I think if we fail to see that it is right for God to seek to display his awesome holiness, as well as his astounding humility, then there is something very lacking in our understanding of his character.

---

quote:

---

The other aspect of your post that I find I cannot accept is ironically, the difficulty I have with Anselm's theory of atonement, that you seem to consider God bound by a moral standard outside himself. IMO, all of our love of morality and rightness comes from God, and the ultimate standard of morality is HIM. That is why I believe that "moral acts" outside of faith in Christ are useful, but in the end don't bring us to know God.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well this would be true, except that I don't see that a) what God means by justice is the same as the common meaning, and in particular that God's justice is inherently meshed with punishment, as PSA demands. I would see it as restorative, as per Seekers excellent post,
and b)PSA, where an innocent party is punished for someone elses sins is, I suggest, by any normal or scriptural definition of the word, unjust.

---

quote:

---

Put it this way, I'm not telling God how He should behave, denying His transcendance, as much as saying that I believe that, in Jesus, He has shown me what He is like, and that He is a reliable guide to the character of the Father.

---

quote:

---

Not really sure what you mean here. It's not so much a question of whether it's right for God to do these things, as whether he does seek to do them. I certainly agree that the effect is that these aspects of His character are indeed displayed (though, as we have noted, we might have some differences on how those terms are understood), but I'm by no means convinced that this is His motivation.

---

quote:

---

I must confess myself confused by this. Your summary is precisely the reverse of my argument. For PSA to be necessary (ie for Christ to have to be punished at Calvary) then it must mean that God is constrained by the "law". Wheras the law is merely our imperfect understanding of an aspect of His nature. I really don't see that saying that God is able to forgive a sin without the need for that sin to be punished is equivalent to saying that God is subject to an external necessity.

---

Because you are saying that God must be constrained by OUR understanding of justice. I am saying he defines justice as HIMSELF being glorified, even where we do not accept it as just. PSA does not say that God is constrained by the law (contra Anslem). It says the law is an expression of God's character. God is only constrained by himself, not death, not our choice, not our hard hearts. It is this view of God that leads me down the road called PSA ville.

--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love

Posted                          

quote:

---

That is why I believe that "moral acts" outside of faith in Christ are useful, but in the end don't bring us to know God.

---

quote:

---

Is this moral relatvism, as Seeker says? No it is not, because as long as the ultimate standard to be displayed is the glory of a loving humble and just God, and as long as I understand that I am NOT him, and therefore cannot take his roles upon myself (contra, eg the suicide bomber) then Christiam morality is demonstrated, not undermined.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
This is interesting. Is this a personal belief or a Reform one? (I ask genuinely as I don't know a lot about Reform theology).

---

quote:

---

My problem is I cannot view as "just" a God who thinks that destruction secures Justice. I cannot view as "humble" a God who seeks nothing other than his glorification. To have words and concepts that literally mean opposite things when God does them and we do them, is either relativism or it is nonsense.

---

quote:

---

To me, God seeks to bring about Justice by changing human hearts to encourage us to do what is right and repair the damage of Injustice. When that is not possible, God stands in solidarity in pain and suffering with us. To me, God's humility is expressed in giving his creation life and holding it in being when there is no "requirement" to do so; it's all wonderfully gratuitious. He wants to be in relationship with us because he wants to be in relationship with us - not because he needs someone to see his glory.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

ISTM in the Bible that sin IS always linked to punishment. I studied theories of punishment at university, and ISTM, that any theory rests on their being some punitive link between sin and retribution.

---

Well, my University eductation was much more centred on microwave (EMR, that is, not the cookers . But whilst punisment is, or should always be, linked to sin, (ie you shouldn't be punished for what you haven't done) ISTM that there is no per se reason for the reverse to be true. Because theories of punishment CAN be built on a link between sin and retribution, it does not mean that they should, or that, if they are, such theories are valid.

As for the OT revelation of God as being wrathful, I think we would stray to far into the realm of the rotting equines to pursue this. But for the benefit of those poor benighted sould who haven't slogged through the 30 or so pages on inerrancy, I believe that the OT revelation was radically reassesed by the reality of Christ. It wasn't so much that God was angry with sinners, as that sin and limited revelation distorted the view of those in the OT. It wasn't that God couldn't abide sin, but that sinful people couldn't abide holiness.

quote:

---

depends on what you think the point of the punishment is. If, as you have indicated, you don't think "the sentence being served" is important, but rather ONLY the effect of punishment on the offender, then substitution makes no sense. ISTM that God thinks "the sentence" is very important.

---

quote:

---

The fact that he presents the sacrifice himself, to himself, of himself makes him more loving (and more committed to our restoration) rather than less.

---

quote:

---

And was Jesus never concerned to vindicate himself? I think he was.

---

quote:

---

Even, in fact, his demonstration of humility, was a self vindication, because he wanted to show people something of God's character in it. Again we had this discussion on the last thread.

---

quote:

---

I think its more complex than "Jesus was humble". He who said
"my yoke is easy and my burden is light" also said "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." Was that glory, Jesus had before the world began just humility? I think not.

---

quote:

---

You see, what is his motivation then? To love and accept us? He could have done that without the cross. To defeat death? He could have done that without the cross. To move us to love him? He could have done that without the cross. What he couldn't do was ALL of those things AND display his justice.

---

quote:

---

Because you are saying that God must be constrained by OUR understanding of justice. I am saying he defines justice as HIMSELF being glorified, even where we do not accept it as just.

---

NONONONO!!!!! That is precisely what I am not saying. It is the proponents of PSA who say that the nature of justice constrains God to act in a certain way. I am saying that we cannot know what the fulness of Justice means in God's eyes. It is not MY understanding of justice, which I accept is limited, which I am seeking to, in some way, impose on God. But the one thing I would (and indeed, do) bet my life on, is that the divine concept of justice, as revealed by Jesus, is higher than any human standard. It is more restorative, more perfect, than can be thought up by the human mind. So it is reasonable, I think, to infer that, since Jesus is so concerned that we don't take retribution or insist on our vindication, this is at least the closest we can get to God's justice. Of course, it will be a great deal more wonderful than we can concieve, but it will certainly not be less than we , through the Spirit's inspiration, aspire to.

Does this not make any sense. I have tried to be as clear as I can on this matter. If we are to judge concepts such as justice at all, we must, surely, have some reference point. Mine is the life of Jesus. If he doesn't condemn, as far as I can see that means that God does not condemn.

--------------------
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)

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
It is the proponents of PSA who say that the nature of justice constrains God to act in a certain way. I am saying that we cannot know what the fulness of Justice means in God's eyes. It is not MY understanding of justice, which I accept is limited, which I am seeking to, in some way, impose on God. But the one thing I would (and indeed, do) bet my life on, is that the divine concept of justice, as revealed by Jesus, is higher than any human standard. It is more restorative, more perfect, than can be thought up by the human mind. So it is reasonable, I think, to infer that, since Jesus is so concerned that we don't take retribution or insist on our vindication, this is at least the closest we can get to God's justice. Of course, it will be a great deal more wonderful than we can concieve, but it will certainly not be less than we , through the Spirit's inspiration, aspire to.

Does this not make any sense. I have tried to be as clear as I can on this matter. If we are to judge concepts such as justice at all, we must, surely, have some reference point. Mine is the life of Jesus. If he doesn't condemn, as far as I can see that means that God does not condemn.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

I have no idea. I have never had anything to do with Reform

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

quote:

---

I have no idea. I have never had anything to do with Reform

---

Oh, please. Do I really need to say "reform theology"? I wasn't talking about the organisation.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

And yet the mystery of the Gospel is that God achieves his own glory in the most wonderfully humble way. And that is why I love this doctrine for it reveals the essence of God - wonderfully humble yet awesomely glorious. Myabe this is nonsense, in the same way that the Trinity is nonsense - 3 and one, or the incarnation is nonsense - God and man. So be it. I love this nonsense.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
So why not love Satan, then? Seriously. You love a God who hurts people in an infinite way? This is what I don't get. Why on earth do I want to worship someone like that? In that case, give me the Greek or Roman gods. At least I have a chance to appeal to a god who is basically good over a god who is basically evil or capricious.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Yep. You see, I see it differently. God needed nothing - the Trinitarian relationship was perfect from eternity. He did not need our relationship or our praise.
Yet God chooses to order history such that we, privileged creatures can be caught up in his glory. This is an immense act of grace on his part. And he does not do it because he has a need that we can fulfil, he does it because it shows again his wonderful character. If he renounces or minimises his glory in the way that he does that, then he is not being loving to us - for we are missing out on what we are made to share in.

---

quote:

---

Incidentally, your theory still fails to account for the holiness of God. The whole Biblical witness suggests that God's reaction to sin, the outworking of his holiness in relation to it, is destructive.
How can God come to us, lve in us no less, change our hearts, make us work for justice, if his burning holiness towards sin in the OT (and indeed portrayed throughout the NT in various places) brought destruction?
The various answers floated - the OT is wrong about God's character, God changed his mind, somehow Jesus contradicts this revelation even though he went out of his way NOT to do that I don't accept. PSA answers this question.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

I'm not being rude. No really, I'm not, but I don't see what this comment has to do with anything we are discussing here. I don't think I made any mention of hell did I?

All I was doing is pointing out that God's character is complex, and nowhere is that complexity more revealed in his simultaneous self humbling and self glorification at the cross. How is that evil or capricious?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

quote:

---

The thing is, what if there was _no_ sacrifice as a consequence of sin? If the wages of sin are not death? While the forgiveness aspect of that seems positive, it seems it might destroy any fundamental morality of the universe.

---

I see wisely-administered punishment as being useful as a teaching tool in some contexts. I do not see it as achieving Justice. If we cease to know and to teach morality, fundamental morality will disappear. Killing someone in the name of our alleged morality doesn't achieve justice. Only righting the wrong achieves Justice (and sometimes Justice cannot be achieved because the wrong can't be righted.)

---

quote:

---

But it is certainly a fact that the person who is not afraid to die is radically free. He is radically free to be a suicide bomber and do radical evil. He is also radically free to lead people in protest and do radical good.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Going from the idea that justice involves a kind of balancing, I could imagine justice being served in a way did not repair a specific wrong. You could consider exactly the same wrong being inflicted on the wrongdoer (eye for eye) as just - even though the damage is doubled. I don't think that justice, in itself, is by definition good or productive, although good and productive things might have to be just.

---

quote:

---

In terms of the morality thing, though, I wasn't thinking of punishment but of consequence, which could be utterly unjust.

---

quote:

---

If I sin, it's usually someone else who gets hurt. I was thinking that the essential relationship might be that a link exists between the class of actions called sin and bad consequences. Since, otherwise, sin seems to become an arbitrary concept.

---

quote:

---

So, if God prevented the consequences of sin, He'd remove that relationship and thereby remove the meaning of sin. So the crucifiction wouldn't be necessary because someone had to be punished, but because sin had to have an evil consequence, in the ultimate case the murder of God. God didn't crucify Jesus, we did. The sacrifice was implicit in the incarnation, given omniscience.

---

quote:

---

Presumably, God could have conceivably prevented the evil consequence of sin, namely the crucifiction. But if He had, He would have taken away the meaning of sin, and hence perhaps the opportunity for repentance. Preventing the crucifiction might have been the ultimate temptation of God, even.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

quote:

---

[Citing Thomas W]
Presumably, God could have conceivably prevented the evil consequence of sin, namely the crucifiction. But if He had, He would have taken away the meaning of sin, and hence perhaps the opportunity for repentance. Preventing the crucifiction might have been the ultimate temptation of God, even.

---

Interesting idea!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

It makes sense. But it is simply faulty logic. It rests on 3 IMO, mistaken assumptions.
1) We have discussed before. Whether Jesus "never condemned". Which I am pretty sure he did sometimes.
2)Discussed before as well. That we should understand Jesus as rewriting the OT rather than fulfilling it.

3) is the one I am most interested in - that God would only require us to behave in a way that he behaves.
You see, this is why the underlying principle for me is the glory of God. For us to act in line with God's glory and for him to act in line with his glory is not the same. For us to respect him as creator and for him to act as creator will look different in practice.

Let's take an example. "Thou shalt not kill" It is wrong for us creatures made in God's image to decide to remove another of God's creatures from life. However, even in the New Testament it is not wrong for God to do this - look at Ananias and Sapphira - life is his to give and to take away.
The underlying principle is not some moral absolute that underlies the universe that both God and us are bound by.
The underlying principle is that God must be magnified, demonstrated, vindicated. But for US to do that, and for him to does not always involve us doing the same thing

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well I don't think the logic is faulty, though I agree that the premises which you outline are a fairly accurate summary of my position. I do, indeed believe that Jesus never condemned, (cf Jn 3:17 et al) though he certainly rebuked and disciplined on occasion, which is something quite different (Here, I'm talking about the Gospel accounts, rather than the interpretive minefield of Revelation).
I do indeed believe that Jesus so re-interpreted the OT that it, from a human point of view, He stood it on its head. The Jews of the time were certainly in no doubt about this.

---

Disagree, discussed before. Dead Horse.

quote:

---

I do, indeed, think that the concept of God's glory as motivator is a dead end. Let me unpack that. I am with you if you say, "Any action of God will always result in His glory being revealed in some way. This is a very long way from saying that any act of God must be motivated, wholly, primarily, or to a degree, by desire to increase or display His glory, which seems to be perilously close to what you are suggesting.

---

So perilously close that it is, in fact, what I am suggesting.

quote:

---

Part of the problem is our understanding of the word "glory". The common meaning is magnificence, otherness. But, in biblical terms, Jesus refers in the passage from John, of the cross in terms of glory - not exactly the image that springs most readily to mind.

---

quote:

---

The third point is, indeed interesting, but my point was, not that our idea of justice and God's should be the same, but that Jesus' idea of justice and God's should be the same. I could and would argue with you about whether "justice", (which I agree to have at its roots a manifestation of God's character, btw) is universal or changes meaning between God and man, but, surely, you wouldn't argue that Jesus perception and God's perception are radically different. I was not contrasting our sense of Justice with God's, but suggesting that Jesus' sense of justice and God's surely must be the same.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

I do indeed believe that Jesus so re-interpreted the OT that it, from a human point of view, He stood it on its head. The Jews of the time were certainly in no doubt about this.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

So perilously close that it is, in fact, what I am suggesting.

---

Pretty certain it was - just didn't want to put words in your mouth (not, of course, that I've ever done that

quote:

---

PSA says, yes his humility and love, but also his sense of divine justice. Without the latter (ie under any other theory of the atonement ALONE) God is "de glorifiying himself" by simply making himself less than he is.

---

Only if the sense of divine justice includes the notion of punishmnent, which is of course, not so much a bone, but a whole skeleton of contention between us!

quote:

---

Yes, and in that we are back to point one - whether Jesus' concept of justice included any idea of punishment. Which I am pretty convinced it does.

---

quote:

---

I do indeed believe that Jesus so re-interpreted the OT that it, from a human point of view, He stood it on its head. The Jews of the time were certainly in no doubt about this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not entirely certain I agree with that. I don't consider myself an expert on Judaism by any means, but I've had a personal experience where studying Judaism helped to convince me that I was 100% certain that I wanted to remain a Christian.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

Yes, and in that we are back to point one - whether Jesus' concept of justice included any idea of punishment. Which I am pretty convinced it does.

---

And I'm pretty sure doesn't. I could cite the woman at the well, Zaccheaus, the Lost Son, the woman taken in adultery, his general ease with "sinners". Had you anything in mind.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

However, it certainly seems true that many Jews in First Century Palestine were looking for a specific type of Messiah,...

---

As usual, I agree.