|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Substitutionary Atonement.. why was Christ crucified?
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
This may be another thread, but I cannot accept either based on the textual evidence, or on the character of God as he reveals himself, that the law was " a mistake" and God, realising it decided to send his Son to die instead. But I believe there is at least one thread on the role of the law elsewhere...
I also find Autobailer's description of "giving death more than it can swallow" completely unfathomable - can you please explain it again? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Isn't the issue with Christus Victor, not that anyone is saying that Christ conquering death is not a central achievement of his atoning work, but rather HOW did he defeat death?
An understanding of the cross that holds PSA as the central model holds that by taking the punishment we deserve (death and (debated) Hell), in our place, Jesus defeats death, by dealing with that punishment. How else does it work? In words of one syllable please as I haven't followed any of the explanations of this so far on this thread!
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
AB
Shipmate
# 4060
|
Posted
Leprechaun,
The trouble with the "he took our punishment" idea is that Jesus didn't seem to take our punishment. If our punishment is physical death then we still have that coming - or if it is spiritual death, and hell or nothingness* then Jesus' resurrection and place on the right of the Father is proof that he didn't serve that either.
I guess this is one of my principle arguments against PSA.
AB
* delete according to flavour of faith™
--------------------
"This is all that I've known for certain, that God is love. Even if I have been mistaken on this or that point: God is nevertheless love."
- Søren Kierkegaard
Posts: 513 | From: not so sunny Warwickshire | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AB:
Leprechaun,
The trouble with the "he took our punishment" idea is that Jesus didn't seem to take our punishment. If our punishment is physical death then we still have that coming - or if it is spiritual death, and hell or nothingness* then Jesus' resurrection and place on the right of the Father is proof that he didn't serve that either.
I guess this is one of my principle arguments against PSA.
I've always understood this to be somewhat the point. Jesus does die, and is separated from God (and face God's anger, that we deserve, I know many peeps have objections to this but...whatever)which is Hell. However, the fact that he is raised again shows that the punishment is completely dealt with, absolutely taken, in the same way that if someone goes to prison and is freed again, it shows their punishment has been served. The resurrection thus assures as that death is defeated, and that our punishment has been taken at the same time.
As for the physical death issue - Paul's point in 1 Cor is that death is defeated - its sting is removed, even though we still face it itself.
That's how I see PSA and Christus Victor fitting together...complementary rather than mutually exclusive....
[fixed UBB for quote]
[ 03. February 2004, 18:44: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
Here's a thought...
For those of you who don't accept PSA but do accept the authority and veracity of the OT, how do you explain how the problem of God's anger (which is evdiently the main problem between God and his people throughout OT history) is dealt with, so that God can accept us?
If its not Jesus bearing God's anger in our place, then what changes between then and now?
Please note: This is not a question about OT critical scholarship, as I know there are those aboard who don't take the same view of OT as me, and that is a discussion for elsewhere, but for those who want to deal with it as inpsired and an accurate account of God's dealing with his people, how do you deal with the anger issue?
[ 03. February 2004, 17:36: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
AB
Shipmate
# 4060
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
However, the fact that he is raised again shows that the punishment is completely dealt with, absolutely taken, in the same way that if someone goes to prison and is freed again, it shows their punishment has been served.
But this doesn't seem to be following the same line of justice that is behind the whole idea of PSA, vis that God cannot act softly on sin, he has to be just. Letting someone off early may well be merciful and indeed virtuous, but it is not necessarily justice.
AB
--------------------
"This is all that I've known for certain, that God is love. Even if I have been mistaken on this or that point: God is nevertheless love."
- Søren Kierkegaard
Posts: 513 | From: not so sunny Warwickshire | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I also find Autobailer's description of "giving death more than it can swallow" completely unfathomable - can you please explain it again?
Isn't the issue with Christus Victor, not that anyone is saying that Christ conquering death is not a central achievement of his atoning work, but rather HOW did he defeat death?
God can not die. Jesus of Nazareth died. Death came to Jesus. Jesus was also God. By taking Jesus, death tried to take God. Because God can not die, death failed and because it is death, it either would or could not give up trying until it was broken (or God was dead).
Had God simply remade the universe to break death, he would have robbed the universe of some of its meaning or possibly entered into conflict with himself- a situation that is either impossible or simply too dangerous for the universe.
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Here's a thought...
For those of you who don't accept PSA but do accept the authority and veracity of the OT, how do you explain how the problem of God's anger (which is evdiently the main problem between God and his people throughout OT history) is dealt with, so that God can accept us?
If its not Jesus bearing God's anger in our place, then what changes between then and now?
A change in approach, possibly caused by a change in the mind of God, possibly (and more likely) a change in the maturity of Man, so God could change from being a disciplinarian of a parent of a rebellious child to treating Man as an adult who could make his own choices.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Isn't the issue with Christus Victor, not that anyone is saying that Christ conquering death is not a central achievement of his atoning work, but rather HOW did he defeat death?
An understanding of the cross that holds PSA as the central model holds that by taking the punishment we deserve (death and (debated) Hell), in our place, Jesus defeats death, by dealing with that punishment. How else does it work? In words of one syllable please as I haven't followed any of the explanations of this so far on this thread!
It's an extremely simple concept. He didn't defeat natural death but spiritual death, which is hell or evil. He did it by teaching the truth so that we could use it to become better people - and not go to hell. It's the most obvious interpretation of what Jesus did.
At the same, He did something somewhat more mysterious, which is that He fought spiritual battles against the hells themselves. They were able to attack Him as a human (but not as God) - just as hell attacks each one of us. He overcame them in these battles, depicted especially as the tamptations in the wilderness, and as the internal struggles of Jesus at Gethsemene and on the cross.
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
For those of you who don't accept PSA but do accept the authority and veracity of the OT, how do you explain how the problem of God's anger (which is evdiently the main problem between God and his people throughout OT history) is dealt with, so that God can accept us?
If its not Jesus bearing God's anger in our place, then what changes between then and now?
I accept the authority and veracity of the OT, but also believe that depictions of Jehovah there are not always literal but are accommodated to the understanding of the people of that time.
It is just too hard to believe that Jehovah would really have been sorry that He ever made mankind (Genesis 6) or that He would have destroyed Israel if Moses had not talked Him out of it by saying "What would the Egyptians think?" (Exodus 32). What kind of God is that? It's much easier for me to believe that God never gets angry, but has a complete love and understanding of the human race - and that descriptions of His anger are merely accommodations to our limited understanding.
The purpose of the appearance of anger is to lead us to see that evil is harmful and has negative consequences. The whole point is to lead us away from evil and hatred, and towards living a good life, and therefore towards happiness.
What has changed between then and now is that if the human race is able to heed the words of Jesus, then there can be love and peace in the world. Also, since He defeated the power of hell at His coming, we are free to choose between good and evil and are not enslaved by its power.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
For those of you who don't accept PSA but do accept the authority and veracity of the OT, how do you explain how the problem of God's anger (which is evdiently the main problem between God and his people throughout OT history) is dealt with, so that God can accept us?
Actually, I rather thought the main problem was his people's disobedience and spiritual harlotry. God's anger seems to me more of an effort on his part to get them back in line, rather than the fundamental point at issue. Further I don't believe God doesn't accept us, and God's accepting us isn't the issue with salvation, rather our ability or inability to accept, and ultimately become like, God.
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."
The problem is not God's attitude towards us, but our attitude towards God.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It's an extremely simple concept. He didn't defeat natural death but spiritual death, which is hell or evil. He did it by teaching the truth so that we could use it to become better people - and not go to hell. It's the most obvious interpretation of what Jesus did.
There are issues in your post about the nature of OT revelation that will mean we won't agree about some things, but they are issues for somewhere else I imagine.
I think the interpretation you put forward for Jesus actions - that he came so we could follow his teaching to become better people and so save ourselves is far from the most obvious interpretation, it certainly seems to be far from the interpretation of the apostles in any of their letters, who saw Jesus death and resurrection as the key actions that made a difference between us and God, by their atoning nature. No matter what theory of the atonement we take, it is a huge step away from the Biblical material to say that it is us following Jesus moral teaching that atones for our own sin.
quote:
Mousethief wrote:
Actually, I rather thought the main problem was his people's disobedience and spiritual harlotry. God's anger seems to me more of an effort on his part to get them back in line, rather than the fundamental point at issue. Further I don't believe God doesn't accept us, and God's accepting us isn't the issue with salvation, rather our ability or inability to accept, and ultimately become like, God.
There are two issues here:
1) Was God's anger just an attempt to get people back in line our a real characteristic of God - an outworking of his holiness in reaction to sin? (and therefore a problem that needs dealth with) I would say, as you can imagine, that from the very beginning it was the latter - Adam and Eve were not thrown out of the garden in attempt to bring them to self reformation, but because the right result of their sin was punishment and separation from God. It is this punishment that Jesus death deals with (by, I would submit, taking it in our place)
2) Is the problem with God accepting us or us accepting God? I think the root of the problem is that God will not accept us while we continue to rebel against him because it would be a compromise of his character, and so "gives us over" (in Romans terms) to a state of mind that will not accept him. As such, both are problems that need to be solved - God needs to be propitiated, have his anger dealt with, and we need to be expiated - have our sin and rebellious nature against God taken away. The cross does both - but only because Jesus takes God's anger and our sin on himself.
P.S., sorry I can't work out the UBB thing with quotes , so it doesn't all look very neat!
[fixed UBB for quote]
[ 04. February 2004, 12:32: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Leprechaun, you posted
quote:
I think the root of the problem is that God will not accept us while we continue to rebel against him because it would be a compromise of his character,...
But if you look at Jesus life, this is exactly what Jesus did not do. In fact, he seems to have been far more comfortable with the "sinners" than he was with religious types. Far from compromising his character (as the Son of God) he was sufficiently relaxed about these things to allow others to criticise Him for His laxity. I find all this talk about God's righteous anger against sin deeply unconvincing in the light of Jesus' life. If you believe in progressive revelation (how else are we to understand Hebrews 1:1 quote:
"In the past God spoke to our forefathers ...but in these last days He has spoken to us through His Son
then we should surely interpret the Old Testament teaching of God's anger in the light of Jesus' teaching of God'd unconditional love. Sin seperates us from God's love, to be sure, but the separation is all on our side.
quote:
and so (He)"gives us over" (in Romans terms) to a state of mind that will not accept him.
This passage is sometimes interpreted in this way, it is true, but is not what Paul says merely a restatement of God's gift of free will, coupled with the "reap what you sow" (ie actions have consequences) principle.
You are right in saying that there is a problem inherent in the thinking which you espouse, but it is a problem which is nothing more than the result of the logical inconsistency which underlies this thinking, that is, that God has anger that must be dealt with and propitiated. I have to say that, on my part, I find this view deeply offensive, as it portrays my Heavenly Father as some kind of cosmic ogre, who goes around kicking things with which he doesn't agree.
Once you look at Jesus, I believe that you can see the true nature of the Father, and once you do that, the need to produce convoluted and self contradicting theories like PSA evaporates.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think the interpretation you put forward for Jesus actions - that he came so we could follow his teaching to become better people and so save ourselves is far from the most obvious interpretation, it certainly seems to be far from the interpretation of the apostles in any of their letters, who saw Jesus death and resurrection as the key actions that made a difference between us and God, by their atoning nature. No matter what theory of the atonement we take, it is a huge step away from the Biblical material to say that it is us following Jesus moral teaching that atones for our own sin.
"Following Jesus' moral teachings" is not the way I would put it at all. I would call it obedience to God. Nor do we atone for our own sin. To atone is to change, and it is God who changes us, not we ourselves, when we obey His Word.
As for this not being true to what Jesus taught, or how the apostles understood Him, I think that virtually every statement Jesus made was about doing good and turning away from evil. The same is by far the central message of the letters. Proof texts aren't even necessary, but I will supply them if you wish. In fact I doubt that you can find a single chapter in any of the gospels where this is not the main emphasis.
Not that Jesus' death and resurrection are not also central, but they make a one since they represent His final victory over the power of evil, enabling people to obey Him. The disciples were sent out to "make disciples of all the nations...teaching them to observe all the things that I have commanded you" (Matthew 28.20). It seems to me that this is the most obvious interpretation - although it is certainly not the fullest or most nuanced one. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
JJ,
I have to go, so just a couple of quick replies
1) Your view does more than "reinterpret" the OT, it writes off nearly all it reveals from about the character of God from beginning to end. Maybe you are happy to do this, I am not. The question is not just "How do we understand Jesus mission from the Gospels?" but "how do we understand it in the light of the whole Biblical revelation?" God's anger is a major issue to be dealt with here (as paul also obviously thought in Romans 1)
Neither cv alone, or any other atonement model deals with it.
2) I think your point about Jesus being the friend of sinners is exactly the key one. If Jesus was the Holy God of the OT walking among us how could he befriend sinners? What knowledge about a solution for sin did he have that meant he was not distant and unapproachable? (Indeed how was God sometimes unapproachable in holiness in OT, and yet so certain that he could also have a close personal relationship with his people) The answer, I think is PSA.
3) You may find the anger of God offensive. But we must be careful not to be "making God in our own image" - even if we do find it offensive, there is a huge weight of Biblical material portraying him this way. We have to accept it.
There's lot more on this, and I can't deal with it all as I have to go back to my actual job now! Please bear with me as I am the only one defending PSA here (self inflicted I know!), and I can't reply to all of these comprehensively at the mo'!
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Lep,
Sorry to drag you away from your work ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) My job for today has been cancelled ![[Cool]](cool.gif) !!
I'll just reply to your points whilst I have the time. You can respoond when you have a moment.
1) I relise that I probably don't share the same view of the Scripture as you. Just to summarise, without going into the realms of deceased equines, I do believe the Bible to be God inspired, but I don't believe it of be inerrant in the way in which that phrase is commonly used. I do believe the claims that the Bible makes for itself, namely that its purpose is the revelation of God to those who would seek Him. I also believe that it is God-breathed (note the present tense). Belief in those two truths in no way precludes the view that the God of the Old Testament is progressively revealed from someone barely different from a tribal war-god, to someone recognisibly the Father of out Lord, Jesus Christ. It isn't that God has changed, but, if you like, that His people got to know him better, and therefore could better hear what He was saying. But of course, it isn't until Jesus that we can really see what He is like. Of course, if you take the view that every word of the scriptures is literally true, then we are faced with the conundrum of a God who is both wholly loving, and who also directs us to stone adulterers, or for that matter to eliminate a whole race of people. It's worth noting that Jesus didn't seem to hold to the literalist position, and was delightfully free with his use of Scripture.
In any case, I believe it to be rather an overstatement that to question the idea of God's anger is to "write() off nearly all it (the OT) reveals from about the character of God from beginning to end." There is actually far more about God longing for His people to come to Him, to "act justly, and love mercy, and walk humbly with their God".
2) Or, alternatively, God doesn't have any problem in associating with sinners, (though sinners may have problems in associating with Him! ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
3)My fault for not expressing myself clearly enough. I was aware as I wrote that it would be possible to construe my comments in the way in which you have. It is not so much that I find the comments offensive to myself, more that PSA casts God in a role that is deeply dishonouring to Him. It makes Him out to be so much less than He is. I feel it is insulting to Him. It's not that one recasts God in ones own image, but that one should view him in His own image, that of Jesus. WRT the last sentence of para 3, see point 1.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
God's anger is a major issue to be dealt with here (as paul also obviously thought in Romans 1)Neither cv alone, or any other atonement model deals with it.
CV deals beautifully with God's anger. God is extremely zealous to eradicate evil. This zeal takes the form of anger in many places as it is expressed in the OT, and even the NT. But it is merely the ardent desire that evil, hatred, sin, etc. not be. Once evil is overcome, and the sinner stops sinning, the zeal has achieved its purpose and abates, for there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over a hundred who did not need repentence.
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
2) I think your point about Jesus being the friend of sinners is exactly the key one. If Jesus was the Holy God of the OT walking among us how could he befriend sinners?
Jesus didn't befriend sinners because they were sinners, but because they showed the capacity to hear Him and change their ways. This is what the Holy God of the OT wanted all along - mercy and repentance, not sacrifices. On the other hand Jesus showed unremitting hostility to the real sinners, the chief priests, scribes and pharisees, who would neither hear Him nor change their ways.
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
3) You may find the anger of God offensive. But we must be careful not to be "making God in our own image" - even if we do find it offensive, there is a huge weight of Biblical material portraying him this way. We have to accept it.
Objecting to an angry God is not "making God in our own image." The idea that God is not angry but merciful, and indeed mercy itself, is from the Scriptures themselves. You can always resort to the idea that "His ways are not our ways" and pass it off as an irresolvable paradox, but I just don't think that this is the best way to go. There are much more accessible resolutions to this problem. The obvious one is simply that God is opposed to evil, and that this opposition is expressed in many forms in Scripture.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
JJ,
A bit more time, but not much! Here's my replies:
1) Hmm, deceased equine territory indeed. The things you describe as conundrums I do not find to be so, largely because I think they are solved by God's demonstration of his character (holy and loving) through a PSA understanding of Jesus death. Nether do i agree about Jesus use of Scripture...Oh well.
I have to say though that a large proportion of Jesus' teaching and treatment of people displayed (righteous) anger at their attitude to God. He does announce the destruction that befell Sodom on Capernaum for instance. This is consistent with the God of the OT as I understand him. The unsolvable paradox that Freddy mentions rears its head - how both unconditonally loving, and yet angry. PSA I think is the answer (and hence the paradox is solvable)! This discussion is getting circular though, I apologise.
2) The God of the OT clearly has problems associating with sinners as the whole religious system set up by Him emphasises his distance from them. God clearly longs to bring them to Him, but their sin (and more problematic, his hatred of it, and anger at it) stops Him. Interestingly this was dealt with, in the short term, by a sacrificial system.
Something changes that distance at the moment of Jesus death (hence the curtain in the Temple ripping) PSA explains this, CV does not.
3) Its good to know that we have the same motivation! I feel that taking away PSA from understanding the cross makes God less than he is, because it means that God is not concerned to demonstrate his immense purity and holiness as well as his amazing love. It is the removal of his righteous anger, IMO, that makes him seem like a wet God who is so desperate for our approval that he had to send poor Jesus to die to get us to notice him. Also as I have said, I don't think the revelation of God in Jesus refutes the character of God as angry with sin, and so one does not have to dumb down the revelation of God in Jesus to make sense of the OT material.
Freddy, again I am not sure I understand you. Better not proof text though, apparently that is frowned on round here. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
If you are saying that God in rescuing us, enables us to live in obedience to Him I agree. My question is what is it about Jesus life, death and res that allows God to come to us and change us in a way he could or would not do for his OT people? I think PSA provides the answer here - his anger, and our sin are dealt with once and for all at the cross.
If you are saying that our obedience to Jesus' teaching saves us I do not agree - as clearly in the OT people could not be saved by obeying God's teaching (or rather they could have done but they never did) and clearly I cannot be saved this way, as I would love to obey Jesus but never do. Perhaps this is just me.
Just to clarify my position, I am not opposed to a model of the atonement that says Jesus defeated death (or principalities or powers)(more brackets - an "objective model") or one that says Jesus death moves us to turn to God (a "subjective model")but rather that either of these can only be achieved if the problem of sin and God's reaction to it are dealt with - a "substitution model".
Let's not be reactionary - just because this the classic evangelical position does not mean that it is de facto wrong.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Take, for example, the way He yells at the woman caught in adultery. Or the way the father of the prodigal son tears his head off when he comes home.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Just a couple of brief points before I hit the hay.
1) I don't necessarily agree that PSA is the classic evangelical position, though it is certainly dominant amongst certain groups. In terms of the history of the church, though, it's a real "johnny come lately" compared with CV. And of course I don't believe it is wrong on those grounds, despite my sig. Rather it is, as I see it, a weakness in evangelicalism that, as a movement, it has espoused this ( as I believe unscriptural) doctine so intimately.
2) The concept of God being angry with sin is fine. It's when you talk about Him being angry with sinners that the alarm bells start to ring. Of course God is angry with sin, in the same way in which an oncologist is angry with cancer. It is a big leap from that position to one of God punishing Jesus by death for our sin, because someone must be punished for it. There is no necessary link between God being angry at sin, and God having to punish someone in order to satisfy that anger, a character trait that we would find repellant even by the debased standards of the human race.
3) You wrote:
quote:
It is the removal of his righteous anger, IMO, that makes him seem like a wet God who is so desperate for our approval that he had to send poor Jesus to die to get us to notice him.
I suggest that this is not an adequate summary of the CV position , but to reiterate, I believe absolutely that Christ died for us and that his death and resurrection was necessary to win our salvation. What I do not believe is that this death was in any way involved with God's anger, or with satisfying some external constraint on the Father's action. IMO, Jesus is our champion, not our substitute.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
AB
Shipmate
# 4060
|
Posted
Leprechaun,
It's refreshing to see someone on these boards who is genuinely passionate for PSA, I think that has been missing from this thread and others recently, so I thank you for your input.
However, I still have some genuine questions about it, and the one that just won't go away is the concept of Jesus taking our punishment. The classic PSA argument is that God is 100% holy and just and therefore cannot go lightly on sin. Its debt must be paid, and it is paid by God Himself in Jesus. Yet the resurrection and subsequent ascension show that Jesus hasn't actually paid the full price that we are told we have coming to us. This is not consistent with a God who is perfectly just and needs to transfer the debt to someone/anyone. If he could go 'soft' on Jesus and let him off, could he not also have gone 'soft' on us and let us off?
Unfortunately while unresolved questions like this remain floating around in my head, I'll never be able to sit comfortably with PSA.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
AB
--------------------
"This is all that I've known for certain, that God is love. Even if I have been mistaken on this or that point: God is nevertheless love."
- Søren Kierkegaard
Posts: 513 | From: not so sunny Warwickshire | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Take, for example, the way He yells at the woman caught in adultery. Or the way the father of the prodigal son tears his head off when he comes home.
Or indeed the way he gently went into the temple and asked the traders to quietly remove their stalls. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AB:
the resurrection and subsequent ascension show that Jesus hasn't actually paid the full price that we are told we have coming to us.
Could you expand on this?
Are you saying that our punishment is eternal death, but Jesus only died for three days, so he got off lightly?
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Theophilus
Shipmate
# 2311
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
There is no necessary link between God being angry at sin, and God having to punish someone in order to satisfy that anger, a character trait that we would find repellant even by the debased standards of the human race.
Is anger/justice not getting a tad too much of a bad press here?
When you see on TV the mother of a child murdered by terrorists wanting someone to pay, to be punished, is that really something that is repellent and wrong? When the politicians later promise that the perpetrators will be 'brought to justice', are they only mouthing meaningless phrases? There's something about the very fabric of the universe that demands payment for wrongdoing. Lewis' example was that when he, as a small child, drew a line on his brother's picture, the matter was settled by having an equivalent line drawn on his. Payback doesn't need to be taught, it's intuited - and I think that our human desire for justice, though it's fallen, preserves something of the image of God.
Imagine that one of your friends has been badly treated in a way that caused them distress: lied to or about, stolen from, abused in some way. Is your immediate reaction, almost before your concern, not to be morally indignant? 'How dare the *******; I wish I could get my hands on them....'
Now that is not a Christian reaction - or, at least, not the whole of a Christian reaction. It is, however, a natural, appropriate and just reaction - because the action was wrong, it was despicable, and it was deserving of punishment. If it were not for Jesus, it would be the only appropriate reaction. If, given the situation, you were not at all indignant, would you see that as a positive character trait?
Of course, as Christians, we should forgive, just as we have been forgiven. But the anger must come first. I sometimes think we've learnt so much about Mercy that we've forgotten about Justice. If sin does not deserve punishment, forgiveness makes no sense whatsoever. And if sin does deserve punishment, God cannot let it go unpunished without acting contrary to his nature/distorting the moral fabric of the universe - which is very close to something which Autobailer said:
quote:
Had God simply remade the universe to break death, he would have robbed the universe of some of its meaning or possibly entered into conflict with himself.
Insert 'remove sin' for 'break death' (which in Biblical terms is pretty close), and that, for me, is why God couldn't 'just let us off'.
I think SA is very difficult to understand if you reject the OT, not only because of the sacrificial system, but because the anger/justice/payback theme is so firmly embedded across the OT. Read through the Psalms, and see how many times the Psalmists cry for justice and retribution against the adversary, e.g. Ps 69 If God is to be the Righteous Judge, he can't just let people off horrible crimes when their victims are baying for blood - there must be payment.
How exactly the whole 'justice' metaphor works when applied to punishing Jesus for our sin, I don't fully understand - but I don't think we can expect to fully understand the atonement. My take on it is tied up with the Incarnation: in becoming Man, Jesus takes on our identity, and so Man can be punished for Man's sin - and in exchange, humans can receive the righteousness of the only righteous Human. In one sense, it is not substitution, but identification.
(in passing, my take on SA is 'necessary but not sufficient')
One last point: SA is not, for me, a dry theological doctrine, but it's tied up with my practical Christian living. The reason I can forgive those who hurt me and those I care about is that I know the price has already been paid; if I carry on demanding payback, I am demanding the repayment of a debt that has already been repaid. That goes for forgiving myself too. I am all too aware that I am deserving of judgement - only in knowing that that judgement has been expiated can I be free of guilt. I'm very surprised at other posters saying that SA has been a way to inflict guilt on them - for me it's always been a way to be liberated from guilt.
--------------------
If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort, you will not get either comfort or truth, only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair. C.S. Lewis
Posts: 57 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
Are you saying that our punishment is eternal death, but Jesus only died for three days, so he got off lightly?
Isn't that what we're told? Our punishment will be eternal separation from God. Hell, I could probably stand a 3-day separation from God. Jesus got off lightly, according to the rubrics of PSA.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
Are you saying that our punishment is eternal death, but Jesus only died for three days, so he got off lightly?
Isn't that what we're told? Our punishment will be eternal separation from God. Hell, I could probably stand a 3-day separation from God. Jesus got off lightly, according to the rubrics of PSA.
Death is the sentence, not the amount of time dead.
You don't keep mass murderers in the electric chair for length of a time in proportion to the number of people they've killed - they are just sentenced to death (at least in some states of the good ol' USA).
In PSA terms, the debt was paid when Jesus was completely dead on the cross on Friday Afternoon (thus, just before he dies, "It is finished"), not sometime on Sunday morning.
Eternal death is not a prison term in proportion to the crime, it a sentence with no hope beyond.
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Theophilus
Shipmate
# 2311
|
Posted
AB and Mousethief:
The 'three days' thing is where SA and CV meet: the full rigours of sin were placed upon Jesus, but He who was Life couldn't stay dead - and in his rising defeated sin and death for eternity. Not remaining dead is part of the point: sin and the consequences of sin were eternally split at the Resurrection. (I have a primarily SA understanding of the Cross and a CV understanding of the Resurrection - anyone else out there?)
I don't know whether it's meaningful to talk about periods of time in Hell, when dead and not raised - do disembodied souls have a perception of time? If Heaven is eternal, is Hell not also? I don't know - but I think it's a bit glib to talk as if we can easily understand the metaphysics of either.
--------------------
If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort, you will not get either comfort or truth, only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair. C.S. Lewis
Posts: 57 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
AB
Shipmate
# 4060
|
Posted
Hmmmm, I like your answers Anselm and Theophilus, though something just doesn't "feel right" with them. I guess this is just as much a weekness of Abelard as it is of PSA, but it seems like Jesus is not bearing the specific punishment that we, apparantly have awaiting us (universal).
Frankly, it would just feel more like 'justice' if Jesus willingly gave Himself up to a punishment that could hold Him, to an eternity without the Father, for our behalf. Maybe one can play His divinity too far here, but He knew He'd be back after 3 days, therefore He knew that his punishment was not eternal, nor without hope.
Thus PSA just doesn't have the kind of emotional tug for me that perhaps it should have in traditional evangelical circles. But, as alluded to earlier, perhaps this is as much a weakness with Abelard too.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Crikey.
AB
--------------------
"This is all that I've known for certain, that God is love. Even if I have been mistaken on this or that point: God is nevertheless love."
- Søren Kierkegaard
Posts: 513 | From: not so sunny Warwickshire | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Theophilus
Shipmate
# 2311
|
Posted
One mustn't forget the fact that Jesus suffered in a way that none of us have, or could have suffered: being separated from the Father having been in perfect communion with him from eternity.'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' is the centre of SA, both emotively and theologically.
Leaving aside the difficult question of whether the Son and the Father were actually separated on the Cross, the fact that Jesus experienced separation from his Father, with whom he was One, is pretty staggering. For the unity of the Godhead - the Godhead that is defined by the unity of Love - to be divided, has to rank as a greater suffering than anything we can imagine. That's why I don't really buy the 'not enough punishment' argument.
--------------------
If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort, you will not get either comfort or truth, only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair. C.S. Lewis
Posts: 57 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Leprechaun, you wrote: quote:
Originally posted by leprechaun quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Take, for example, the way He yells at the woman caught in adultery. Or the way the father of the prodigal son tears his head off when he comes home.
Or indeed the way he gently went into the temple and asked the traders to quietly remove their stalls.
There is no suggestion that he was punishing the traders for their sin, merely driving them out of the temple. The comparison would be with Eden, not with the Cross.
Theophilus, you wrote: quote:
When you see on TV the mother of a child murdered by terrorists wanting someone to pay, to be punished, is that really something that is repellent and wrong?
Of course, it is an understandable human reaction, but Jesus seemed to think that it is better to forgive. When Gordon(?) Wilson's daughter Maire died at the Enniskillen bombing, he was able to forgive the perpetrators, in the absense of any repentance, because he, rightly IMO, believed that it was what God wanted him to do.
quote:
I think that our human desire for justice, though it's fallen, preserves something of the image of God.
I think, rather, that it is projecting we, who, with our fallen nature, are not at all forgiving, onto God, who is.
quote:
Imagine that one of your friends has been badly treated in a way that caused them distress: lied to or about, stolen from, abused in some way. Is your immediate reaction, almost before your concern, not to be morally indignant? 'How dare the *******; I wish I could get my hands on them....'
And would that reaction be stronger, in general, with someone who has never known God's forgiveness, or with someone who has, for years, walked faithfully with the Master? And who would be more likely to act on those reactions.
quote:
If, given the situation, you were not at all indignant, would you see that as a positive character trait?
We're not talking about indignation here, but about punishment or forgiveness. I think the positive character trait, hard as it is, is to say "forgive them, for they know not what they do."
quote:
if sin does deserve punishment, God cannot let it go unpunished without acting contrary to his nature/distorting the moral fabric of the universe
How do you come to this conclusion? Because human beings, as you put it, bay for blood, does that mean God commends this. As someone once put it, an eye for an eye leads, not to justice, but to a world of blind people. God is not primarily concerned with satisfying our sense of justice, but with reconciling all things to himself. This gets to the centre of my objections to PSA. It makes God subject to the same human weaknesses that we have; anger, the desire for retribution, the notion of "payback". It is us remaking God in our own image. If we look at the life of Jesus, we find that, no, he does not pay back, he doesen't demand his just rights, he doesn't bring retribution down on those who oppose him ... and he chastises those who, for all the best human reasons, suggest that he should. "The Father is not like that," He tells us. "He is like me!"
[Just a little UBB beautification]
[ 07. February 2004, 09:31: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
[AOLUserMode]
What Jolly Jape Said
[/AOLUserMode]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fatprophet
Shipmate
# 3636
|
Posted
But can God simply forgive all and sundry? If so there would hardly be any need for a gospel at all. Everyone accepts that restored relationship and reconcilliation does have to involve some making amends, change of orientation, some cost to be bourne by the wrong doer. Those Christians and others who forgive those who have done terrible evils to their families are undoubtedly relieving themselves of bitterness but are those criminals then to go without any punishment or at least some repentance or restitution? Our natural desire for 'amends' and 'justice' is God given if somewhat distorted by our human minds.
I think that there can be no reconcilliation until the prodigal decides to return home, and wills to stop doing wrong and dedicates himself to restore what he has taken from the wronged person.
The whole concept of atonement is predicated on the idea that there is something, a problem, that prevents us being at one with God, a gulf to be bridged, a change to be made. The concept of atonement at the very least states "something must be done to bring Man back to peace with God" What is that something? To my mind Christianity teaches that the "something" required for atonement is difficult and costly.
PSA is a sterile doctrine because it concentrates on the notion of punishment when Christ's death on the cross is biblically regarded first and foremost as sacrificial act in the tradition of jewish (and perhaps pagan) sacrifices. Sacrifice is not about punishment but about an act of dedication and obedience to the will of God, and the transition from the profane to the sacred. Sacrifice is not just 'one' way of understanding the atonement, it is the primary, biblical way despite the difficulty for modern people in getting their heads round the concept.
Jesus's death is clearly seen as an atonement sacrifice in the bible. He is the "lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World". The lamb imagery refers to sacrifice. Atonement sacrifice is a special kind of sacrificial act where the individual offers his life to God that he may be at peace with God and the covenant with God renewed - I don't think this is to satisfy God's anger or to make amends as such, rather it is the symbolic surrender of the sinner to the true path and complete rejection of his old egoistical ways which is a precondition of full reconcilliation Virtually every world religion has a concept of sacrifice sometimes externalised in ritual, sometimes internalised as an inner battle or mental discipline to overcome the ego.
Jesus in the bible is portrayed as making that sacrifce of atonement on behalf of all people. The real logical difficulties about all theories of the atonement is how the act of one person, be they God and/or Man can be effective to all people? (Why can't we offer our own individual sacrifices? Why do we need a mediator?)
There seems to no logical answer to this problem accept we note the Christian sacraments are based on the idea of our participating intimately in Christ and his sacrifice through the Eucharist.
--------------------
FAT PROPHET
Posts: 530 | From: Wales, UK | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Theophilus
Shipmate
# 2311
|
Posted
Jolly Jape:
Maybe I didn't make myself clear. Let me start out by saying that to react with forgiveness to a wrong is the best way to react - indeed, for a Christian, bearing in mind the parable of the Unmerciful Servant and the Lord's Prayer ('forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us') it's the only way we are allowed to react. To forgive is infinitely better than to seek revenge: vengeance destroys the world, but forgiveness redeems it. In forgiving his enemies, Jesus showed us how we should forgive ours. In sending his Son to earth so that we might be forgiven, the Father demonstrated that forgiveness is at the heart of his nature.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Imagine that one of your friends has been badly treated in a way that caused them distress: lied to or about, stolen from, abused in some way. Is your immediate reaction, almost before your concern, not to be morally indignant? 'How dare the *******; I wish I could get my hands on them....'
And would that reaction be stronger, in general, with someone who has never known God's forgiveness, or with someone who has, for years, walked faithfully with the Master? And who would be more likely to act on those reactions.
Acting on these reactions, we can agree, is completely verboten. Even dwelling on them in the mind is almost certainly wrong (working off the lust = adultery principle). However, I don't think that the absence of moral indignation indicates a holy, forgiving person any more than the absence of fear indicates courage. Forgiveness is putting aside a wrong, not failing to feel it in the first place.
Moral indignation differs from being hurt. Let us suppose that I suffer severe emotional distress from seeing green earrings, and someone walks into the room wearing green earrings. Let us also suppose that they didn't know I disliked them, and that there was no way that they could reasonably have found out the fact. Can I say that I forgive that person for wearing green earrings without speaking nonsense? I think not: they have not done anything wrong and they are not deserving of vengeance. I am still hurt, but I have no moral right against them.
For me, the word 'forgiveness' only makes sense when there is a wrong that has been committed. By a wrong, I mean something that breaks an objective moral order, rather than something which distresses one. I understand forgiveness as giving up the moral right to vengeance, and instead seeking reconciliation, rather than not having any reaction to vengeance at all - for if so, what would there be to forgive? To forgive is to give people not what they deserve, but what they need - but in order for you to forgive them, you must recognise that they deserve vengeance. Forgiveness needs to be reclaimed as a radical, unreasonable reaction to a wrong. It is not possible to deserve forgiveness; it can only be given by grace.
We see forgiveness in a different context: you say we shouldn't pay back because God doesn't; I say we shouldn't because God does and has, summed up neatly by Paul: quote:
Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. (Rom 12:9)
Granted, the thrust of this is in encouraging us not to avenge wrongs - but the justification is clear. We are not to take vengeance because God does. On the cross of Christ all vengeances are satisfied, so that all can be reconciled to God.
--------------------
If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort, you will not get either comfort or truth, only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair. C.S. Lewis
Posts: 57 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle
Shipmate
# 4792
|
Posted
Forgive me if this is too simplistic, but it seems to me there are other components than simply forgiveness and wrongdoing.
Humans may have problems with forgiveness, but I don't believe God does.
I think we are and always have been forgiven. That's God's part. If he didn't forgive us for our brokenness and want to restore us, there would be no reason to try to reconcile us to him. Our part is to accept the forgiveness. That involves repentance and reconciliation - not a blithe assumption that we can do anything and get away with it - isn't that where the cross comes in?
--------------------
where am I going... and why am I in this handbasket?
Posts: 318 | From: Kent, UK | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
I'm afraid I've got a bit left behind in this discussion, but I agree with Theophilus.
In some senses (although not all) I agree with the PSA naysayers, because I think evangelicals have sometime over emphasised the penal rather than the subsitution, and I think Theophilus has dealt well with that issue.
I think what I want to say is that substitution is the central model of the cross, but penal substution is one aspect of this. So Jesus taking the punishment in our place is one of (the main perhaps?) thing he did on the cross, but he also did many other things instead of me, eg take on death and win. In this sense even cv essentially a substitutionary model, because Jesus takes on and conquers death instead of us, so we don't have to - this is still a subsitutionary concept.
Anyway, rambling. Just a couple of things on people's specific posts:
AB - it is clear that while temporally Jesus and God were not separated forever as we will be from God if we rebel against Him, Jesus does bear the marks of this separation into eternity - their relationship is somehow effected even from (if we believe Revelation) the beginning of time. This raises lots of difficult questions about where God stands in relation to our mortal coil, but does I think showm that it wasn't just - oh well its all right to kill Jesus because I can have him back in 3 days. There's other stuff..maybe later. What you said really made me think this through though, and made me realise that I have oversimplified the cross both in my explanation and understanding, without appreciating or plumbing the depths of the mystery.
Thank you.
JJ - temple traders, cheap shot, only meant to show that to say "The God of the OT was all angry, but Jesus was all love" is a crass oversimplification, and actually Jesus' anger at people's sin does manifest itself in anger towards them. What is absolutely clear is that Jesus treated sinners (like me) with compassion, you are right to remind me of that, as sometimes I forget. I would say that Jesus was able to do this, without compromising his perfect pure holiness, because he knew that he, in himself, had the ultimate solution to their sin, and to God's revulsion at it.
Others have suggested that he was able to associate with these people because of their repentance, and there is definitely mileage in this, it was the repentant he associated with, but IMO there must be something more than that, or else we are left with a works based salvation.
It does upset me to see PSA described as cold and clinical. For me it is the very mainstay of my Christianity because it is the lifespring of my assurance that the God who is ultimately burning in holiness is yet ready and able to forgive. While this discussion is occasionally a little tiresome, I have so appreciated the oppotunity to dwell on the achievements of the cross. Now I am going to spend some time lost in wonder love and praise.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Gosh, busy on this thread today.
Theophilus, I think I agree with almost all your last post, but it is no argument for PSA. I just find it very difficult to believe that, as a moral imperative, God would require of us to forgive without seeking a response, if He could or would not do it Himself.
Leprechaun, I agree that CV is a substitutionary model, if by that you mean that Christ wins the victory for us that we could never win ourselves. The problem I have is with the "Penal" bit. Its not so much that PSA is, of itself, a cold, clinical doctrine, though it seems so to me, but that it reqires us to believe in a God who is constrained to act in a ruthless, vengeful manner, in short, a God so unlike Jesus. I see nothing in the scripture (with the possible exception of one verse in Isaiah 53) that suggests that Jesus was being punished on the cross, and many verses to suggest he was reconciling, not only sinners but the whole of (morally neutral) creation to Himself. I dont think that the abandonment of PSA in any way lessens the assurance of which you so movingly and lovingly speak in your last paragraph. Or at least, it didn't with me.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Gosh, busy on this thread today.
Leprechaun, I agree that CV is a substitutionary model, if by that you mean that Christ wins the victory for us that we could never win ourselves. The problem I have is with the "Penal" bit.
Gosh you've sort of blindsided me there. You do believe in SA, just not PSA? Maybe this is just playing with words, but if you believe death to be the punishment for sin, and Jesus faces death and defeats it in our place - aren't you left with an atonement that is both substitutionary and penal?
Is it actually propitiation that is the issue people don't like here - God's anger being dealt with (which has often gone along with PSA but isn't necessarily part of it)? It is the activity of God as active punisher in a "traditional" PSA thinking? I think more and more this discussion has boiled down to that - what is God the father's activity in the atonement rather than Jesus' actvity?
Before you contribute thoughts on that, can you tell me whether you think I am right, that this is at least one of the issues here?
[ 07. February 2004, 15:58: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Theophilus
Shipmate
# 2311
|
Posted
I think that to describe Christ's victory over death as substitutionary is rather misleading.
PSA, at its bare minimum, states that Christ took punishment (penal) instead of us (substitution). It is substitution, because without Christ we would be punished ourselves. Christ takes our place.
However, as to defeating death, we were never going to defeat death ourselves. Where's the substitution? When a substitute comes on in a game of sport, he replaces the player already on the pitch; he takes their place instead of them. The place that Jesus takes when he defeats death is not one that we ever held, or were going to hold. He defeats death for us, not instead of us.
--------------------
If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort, you will not get either comfort or truth, only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair. C.S. Lewis
Posts: 57 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
Well, this is off the point but I don't agree. A subsitute acts on behalf of, or in the place of another.
Jesus took on death and defeated it on our behalf, in our place - conquering death so we need not face it. If we then say that death is the punishment for sin...well then you are almost at PSA aren't you? Maybe I've gone mad.
The reason I labour this, is because the more I have thought about it, there are just so few steps from CV to PSA, that I'm not sure why those who see CV as the central (or only) model of the atonement get in such a lather about it.
My feeling is that, after this discussion, it is the issue of the character of God the father that is raising hackles - people don't like the way traditional explanation of PSA makes God the father look. I stand by it, I think it makes God look like he shows himself to be in the Bible, but I'm just trying to clarify the issues. Anyhoo, didn't want to mess things up, and certainly didn't want to stop agreeing with you Theophilus!
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Lep
Sorry if I've confused you. I was responding to your suggestion that CV could be considered a substitutionary model, and I agreed that, in some senses, it could. To the extent that I think that CV is the model of atonement truest to the scriptures, I am not against SA, though I would not use that term, as the term is most commonly used as a shorthand for PSA, my views on which you will have gathered.
I would actually agree with you that principal difference between us is how we see the Father operating. My understanding of your position is that the Father is constrained in his actions by the necessity of satisfying either His sense of justice, or His anger. He wants to forgive, but cannot without a "sacpegoat". Enter Jesus.
I, on the other hand, do not accept that He is so constrained. The analogy, (which, like all analogies, is somewhat flawed, but I do feel gives a flavour of what is happening), is that God sees us as afflicted by the disease of sin. This is not a moral, but a practical problem for Him. He can deal with our moral culpability by forgiveness, but how does he bring about our healing, essentially our restoration. He must provide the divine medicine. That "medicine" is Jesus. When He dies, he effectively "consumes" death. He draws its' sting. As John says, the Light (Jesus) shines in the darkness and the darkness cannot overcome it. Our human nature is melded with the divine in his incarnation, and he brings it through death to the resurrection.
BTW, as I understand the Old Testament idea of the scapegoat, it is not that the scapegoat is punished for the sins of the people. It is not killed, merely driven into the wilderness, so that it can bear away the people's sin. So I don't think that PSA follows on by analogy from OT sacrifice-based atonement.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The reason I labour this, is because the more I have thought about it, there are just so few steps from CV to PSA, that I'm not sure why those who see CV as the central (or only) model of the atonement get in such a lather about it.
I agree that they're very close. They are, after all, attempts to explain the same thing.
quote:
and L went on...
My feeling is that, after this discussion, it is the issue of the character of God the father that is raising hackles - people don't like the way traditional explanation of PSA makes God the father look. I stand by it, I think it makes God look like he shows himself to be in the Bible, but I'm just trying to clarify the issues.
I agree again that it's that issue that's at stake.
PSA is seen by many, including me I suppose, as suffering from the following:
1. It makes the Father seem incapable of forgiving, unless someone's been punished
2. It makes Jesus, the Son, who appears perfectly (and I say that intentionally) capable of forgiving, of significantly different character to the Father
This contradicts Jesus' words. If you've seen Me, you've seen the Father, etc. The more I read threads like these the more plausible I find The River of Fire (aaargh! VVO!). PSA does, ultimately make God seem to be the enemy, not our infinitely loving Creator and Father.
I've heard from more than one atheist friend that "they want nothing to do with a God who puts us in an impossible situation, sets eternal death as the penalty for any transgression however slight, and then lets us off by killing someone else."
The Trinitarian counter-attack to this cuts no ice with the atheist either. "So, God put us in an (etc), then lets us off by killing Himself, which doesn't work because He's God? Sounds lacking in logic."
The appealing aspect of CV (am I still in CV strictly, or has the OrthodoxVirus™ got me finally?) for me is that God, and I don't mean one person of the Trinity alone, is infinitely forgiving, infinitely loving, and prepared to do anything to rescue us from our sin - anything but remove our free will, which would be a Horribly Bad Thing (sorry psyduck).
If this doesn't work for you, and you can see the loving nature of God more in PSA, well I'm all for it, because when it comes down to it we don't know exactly how the Atonement works in detail. Maybe what gets people's backs up so much about it is that it's presented as the Biblical Position these days.
Hmmmm. On re-reading, maybe the key point is that death is viewed as a punishment for sin, however slight the sin is? Well, maybe that's just - I'm not the judge who has to say - but the idea that death has been allowed to happen to us by God to prevent our sin being locked into us for eternity, effectively turning us into demons, has helped me, i.e. it's a necessary consequence of sin because of God's loving nature rather than his demand for punishment. With this in place, SA (dropped the P) and CV seem even closer and of course, the way through we've been offered is no different.
[Cross-posted with JJ]
[ 07. February 2004, 21:42: Message edited by: Grey Face ]
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
What Grey Face said ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
BTW i'e had a few spots and aches and pains over the last week, quote:
has the OrthodoxVirus™ got me finally?
so now I'm seriously worried!!! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
ISTM that the Bible tend to express that there are two aspects to our involvement (as humans) with sin; we are perpetrators of sin and yet also victims of sin.
The rest of Creation is purely a victim of sin - suffering the consequences, in bondage. Whereas someone like Satan is purely a perpetrator of evil.
Thus the work of Christ in destroying Evil has two aspects in connection to humanity - dealing with our guilt as agents of sin, but also dealing with our bondage as slaves to sin.
Rather that being in competition, CV and PSA actually go together in explaining this dual work of Christ.
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Theophilus
Shipmate
# 2311
|
Posted
Anselm
--------------------
If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort, you will not get either comfort or truth, only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair. C.S. Lewis
Posts: 57 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
Some questions which people might like to get their teeth into.
This thread has, for one made me aware of what to me seems a serious problem with SA. Is God more important than His Law? Can an omnipotent God not override his Law? (not dissimilar perhaps to asking the question of whether an omnipotent God can create a rock He can't lift), quite apart from the oft-repeated problem that SA entails that divine goodness includes blood punishment which divine love cannot override (as an aside to Freddy - I never thought that goodness itself was at stake in - only the salvation of humanity, surely a much smaller thing- I think advocates of SA would cheerfully concede that point).
Nevertheless, I have problems understanding Christus Victor. I submit a couple of examples of what it seems to be about to me:
A heavy smoker decides to quit. For two or three months, he suffers before finally being able to free himself of the cravings for nicotene. He has suffered a 'mini-death' in order to gain a life free of a sort of slavery.
here's another example from recent times:
Nelson Mandela involved himself in the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa. For this he was locked up on Robben Island for many years. His suffering and example, and his presidency of South Africa after his eventual release helped bring a peaceful end to apartheid, and to help restore a division between communities (not complete but definately getting there).
Perhaps I'm being overly juristic, but I have not yet been able to understand the background to 'victory over death'. To me, this sounds like itself an appeal to some sort of law, in this case a natural law from which we discover that Death is the result of separation from God, and suffering is the atonement. Suffering seems to be a requirement - and if I have understood the place of suffering in Christus Victor correctly the idea itself does come very close to SA at this point, the difference being that the state of guilt is seen more distinctly as a broken relationship than a more abstract state.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
May I venture to suggest (liberal side of the LB here) that if PSA causes Lep to be lost in wonder, love and praise, then PSA is a damned good model for Lep to use as primary understanding of atonement.
If, on the other hand, it causes K-LB to question the reality of the forgiveness and mercy of God, then it is a damned bad model for K-LB to use.
In other words - is it not best to say that none of these models is particularly accurate, in that the truth of the matter is probably beyond human understanding, or at least beyond human description. And in the same way it makes sense for the physicist studying refraction to think of light as a wave, and for the physicist studying the photoelectric effect to think of it as a stream of particles, whilst recognising that actually it is both, or neither, it makes sense for each of us to understand atonement in the manner that is most helpful for us.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
the truth of the matter is probably beyond human understanding, or at least beyond human description
And yet surely we have to see it as a sign - which means God trying to communicate to us - therefore it must be understood some way, even if in a multiplicity of ways. But to say it's beyond understanding surely can't be right.
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Why not? Plenty of things of God are claimed to be beyond understanding.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
Why not? Plenty of things of God are claimed to be beyond understanding.
Hmm. shuffles feet reluctantly
It seems to me that we should be able to make sense of Christ's death on the Cross in one way or another because it was a public spectacle. Leaving aside SA questions of whether it was absolutely necessary to make atonement it's an act of very heavy symbolism. What's the point in it then if it doesn't communicate something? Even engaging in endless discussions and headscratching seems better than simply giving up on it.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Theophilus
Shipmate
# 2311
|
Posted
Karl, I agree with you to some extent. It is perfectly legitimate to concentrate on the atonement metaphor that most clearly represents the true nature of God to you.
However, I think there are two problems with the 'it works for you' mentality. Firstly, your theology is impoverished, because any single model of the atonement necessarily leaves out many facets of it. Secondly, and more seriously, it makes you a much less effective teacher and/or evangelist if you are only able to explain the atonement in a single way.
Although I myself use PSA as my primary atonement model, I have listened to sermons expounding the atonement that have made me shudder with the horrible emphasis on God's wrath, even though I would not actually disagree with anything that the speaker said. If it made me shudder, I imagine it would make some of you, who already dislike PSA, puke.
The same reaction is possible with other theories of the atonement, however, not just PSA. I used to feel a similar way about Abelard that some people here do about PSA (and I'm still not particularly keen on it, though SoF has definitely made me re-examine it.) If Abelard was presented to me as the only single valid model of the atonement, I would probably conclude that the atonement, and therefore the whole salvation story, ultimately made no sense.
I think the best solution is to find as many different ways of seeing the atonement as possible - and trying very hard not to write off models that we are initially repelled by.
--------------------
If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort, you will not get either comfort or truth, only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair. C.S. Lewis
Posts: 57 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Which would be what I said. PSA is for me, at this time, a bad model. That does not mean I forget about it, but it means I do not currently use it to understanding the atonement.
This is the strength of the "if it works for you" approach. It can cope with PSA working for Lep and not for me, whereas the "this is actually the truth of the matter" approach does not.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
The possible weakness with the "I believe only what works for me" approach is that if it isn't dynamic, then it could create an image of God that doesn't reflect reality.
Like a policeman who tries to catch a criminal, yet refuses to look at the photograph of the criminal and instead attempts to work only with a silhouette. He may end up grabbing the wrong person.
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
Gosh, this discussion keeps leaving me behind - where do you all find the time?
Just a couple of thoughts
1) I agree with Anselm - we must see ourselves as both perpetrators and victims of sin. There is a problem in some explanations of PSA that it seems to concentrate only on the former. That is a mistake of presentation, but I still don't agree with JJ that it is totally about our healing - I think because PSA - and that the cross demonstrates God's justice - is true, it allows God to come to us and heal us of our sin while still maintaining his righteous character.
2) I don't go for the - if it works for you model, again because I don't see other models being able to work if PSA is removed from the equation, and definitely not if substitution is rejected. I do think the "S" of PSA is the heart of all models of the atonement including CV as I have said.
3) It was interesting to see K-LB say it is fine to say there are things about God we don't understand - I think that was the problem with (the original)Anselm, he was trying to over logicalise everything. That's why I think he's great, but I'm not 100% with him. (which I'm sure he's be upset about.... not)
In saying that, a lot of the objections to PSA on this thread have been on the basis that "I can't understand and therefore don't accept how God can be essentially forgiving and yet angry with sin". I have to be honest I don't really understand this either, but I do accept it because this is the way God is seen to be in the Bible. This has really stuck me recently especially in the minor prophets which I have been studying - the most horrific descriptions of God's wrath right beside the most heartfelt revealing of his passion for sinners. I don't understand this, yet I believe PSA explained properly represents and partially resolves this paradox.
[ 09. February 2004, 15:14: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
