|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Moral Influence atonement theology
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Whatever texts are thrown around re the reasons for the death of Jesus, we should at least consider his own prediction regarding the circumstances of it, which he sets out in the Parable of the Vineyard Tenants (Mark 12: 1-12, Matthew 21: 33-41; and Luke 20: 9-19), that makes it quite clear that the father did not desire the death of his son, that it was the tenants who wanted the son killed, and that the tenants brought on themselves the wrath of the father as a consequence. That is in line with Peter’s sermon at Pentecost. There clearly is not the slightest hint by Jesus here that his judicial murder was in an sense penal substitution to satisfy the father’s wrath.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
PSA: God the Father is a stern judge who condemns us to death for our sin
God condemns sin. He loves us but we are collateral damage if we cannot be separated from sin. As stated on the CV thread years ago, the issue only bites if sin is underestimated as an evil force. It is God's non negotiable. No compromise is possible with sin or it would wreck his universe and destroy his essential nature. Pretty well all criticism of PSA is by people who misunderstand this or don't personally realise it. As Paul states Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners of whom 'he' was chief. Paul strongly implies that forgiveness is contingent upon the fact that Christ is the propitiatory sacrifice for the sin of humanity, individual by individual. If one leaves out that element, one departs from The true church. One may consider oneself a believer but in fact the belief is in a lie. One may protest at the judgement seat but it will be in vain. Your name is in the book or it is not. If you choose to atone for your own sin, you are betting your life on your righteousness and according to scripture,it will not be sufficient.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Here once again you conflate PSA and the atonement, and use this conflation in a circular argument to show that PSA is equivalent to the atonement. ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
]God condemns sin. He loves us but we are collateral damage if we cannot be separated from sin. As stated on the CV thread years ago, the issue only bites if sin is underestimated as an evil force. It is God's non negotiable. No compromise is possible with sin or it would wreck his universe and destroy his essential nature. Pretty well all criticism of PSA is by people who misunderstand this or don't personally realise it.
This is moving away from PSA and becoming Christus Victor.
That I think falls squarely into the category of what Kaplan Corday calls 'pseudo-mystical waffle'.
If I understand the criteria Kaplan Corday is using to claim that PSA is not pseudo-mystical waffle and everything else is - and of course I may not as Kaplan Corday hasn't explicitly told us - it goes as so:
Penal substitution just uses concepts that are part of ordinary social life: you commit a crime, you are guilty, you are punished. We can distinguish between penal consequences of a crime and intrinsic consequences. If I break the fire regulations in my flat, I might burn down my house losing my property, and then the judge might send me to prison for arson. Losing my property is an intrinsic consequence. The judge sending me to prison is a penal consequence - a punishment - because it depends upon the free decision of the authorities. Now, Christus Victor theories state the existence of intrinsic consequences of sin. PSA at a superficial level doesn't. I think that's what Kaplan Corday is getting at.
Now, if you call sin an evil force that can wreck God's universe you are saying that it is in fact an intrinsic consequence above and beyond the fact of commission. As when the arsonist burns down his neighbour's properties. That's putting us in the category of Christus Victor not PSA.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Paul strongly implies that forgiveness is contingent upon the fact that Christ is the propitiatory sacrifice for the sin of humanity, individual by individual. If one leaves out that element, one departs from The true church. One may consider oneself a believer but in fact the belief is in a lie. One may protest at the judgement seat but it will be in vain.
And here is where Jamat condemns all non-PSA believers to Hell.
Nice to have it so explicitly stated.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Guys, you're not talking to my irrational id monster. Or anybody else's. Somebody got whacked because of me. It's all my fault. I'm so guilty. I'm so ashamed. It was bad enough before the death of Christ, but now!!
Of course it's circular! All reason is. This is just more primal. More polluted with irrational feelings, fear. You're 110% right mousethief. And I still bet the vast mass of Easterners would resonate with my feelings.
I agree completely that NONE of that should be an unresolved consequence of the atonement. But it OBVIOUSLY is. Look at KC, Jamat, even Enoch.
Kwesi: a fine example in the landlord's son, but we're still left with a murderously grieving landlord who CANNOT be appeased! This swirls all over the place in the text and in our mainly irrational minds. The irredeamable darkness of it all!
You guys are fully in touch with the transcendence of the at-one-ment. I see it too. With NO ransom, no substitution of any kind. But the very word atonement is the problem. We must atone for being helpless is the strong implication. Created sick and commanded to be well, in the ironic impossible words of Fulke Greville. We need another word.
None of the language of atonement works except the play of at-one-ment in the face of our helpless incapacities.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Is 'irredeamable' redeemable?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Guys, you're not talking to my irrational id monster. Or anybody else's. Somebody got whacked because of me. It's all my fault. I'm so guilty. I'm so ashamed. It was bad enough before the death of Christ, but now!!
I'm not talking to you because you make zero sense. What does the above even mean?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
PSA: God the Father is a stern judge who condemns us to death for our sin
God condemns sin. He loves us but we are collateral damage if we cannot be separated from sin. As stated on the CV thread years ago, the issue only bites if sin is underestimated as an evil force. It is God's non negotiable. No compromise is possible with sin or it would wreck his universe and destroy his essential nature. Pretty well all criticism of PSA is by people who misunderstand this or don't personally realise it. As Paul states Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners of whom 'he' was chief. Paul strongly implies that forgiveness is contingent upon the fact that Christ is the propitiatory sacrifice for the sin of humanity, individual by individual. If one leaves out that element, one departs from The true church. One may consider oneself a believer but in fact the belief is in a lie. One may protest at the judgement seat but it will be in vain. Your name is in the book or it is not. If you choose to atone for your own sin, you are betting your life on your righteousness and according to scripture,it will not be sufficient.
Jamat, where has anyone on this thread suggested that they are trying to save themselves by their own efforts or own righteousness or anything else?
This is a straw-man.
If any of us are saved we are saved by Christ.
What we are talking about here is how that 'works' out in practice and how the atonement works for us, as it were.
I think we need to do some kerygmanic work on Romans and whether Paul is talking about propitiation or expiation - or both. I've seen scholars argue that one in various ways and they are all beyond my pay-grade.
That doesn't mean that I don't have opinions on the issue, but that is what they have to remain - opinions. I'm wary of exalting my own opinions to the status of Holy Writ.
What I can say, though, is that some robust and earnest commentators interpret the various scriptural passages in a PSA and juridical way and others don't.
How does that, one way or another, determine whether they are part of the 'true Church' as you or I or anyone else understands it?
Why does it have to imply that if someone has an alternative viewpoint to you that this means they are bound for eternal perdition?
A questioning of PSA or a challenging of it does not necessarily imply that whoever is doing the questioning or issuing the challenge is somehow trying to save themselves by their own efforts or drag themselves into the Kingdom by their own boot-straps ...
All any of us will be able to plead at the Judgement Seat is to throw ourselves on the love and mercy of Almighty God.
Sure, I've spent the bulk of my Christian life within churches that strongly emphasise PSA. That doesn't mean I shouldn't examine or question the doctrine, nor attempt to learn from traditions which see these things differently.
Holding to some kind of belief in PSA isn't like an insurance ticket - 'I'd better hold onto it just in case, if I deviate from it then my eternal security is at stake ...'
No-one is saying that sin isn't serious or of no consequence and can simply be brushed aside. Sin is deadly. The consequences are all around us.
The issue we are discussing is how God in Christ reconciles the world to himself and deals with the issue of sin.
That's pretty cosmic.
It can't be reduced to a series of sound-bites or set of join-the-dots propositions. Yes, it's to do with the Cross, it's to do with sacrifice, it's to do with ransom, expiation ... and yes, let's discuss propitiation too ...* it's to do with the Incarnation, it's to do with the Resurrection - it's also to do with Moral Influence and the life and teachings and example of Christ ...
It's to do with all of that.
(* and when we do so, let's not simply state that it's there because I believe it to be there or because my evangelical tradition says it's there, let's look at the issue properly)
That Orthodox site with the critique of the juridical understanding of Isaiah 53 ... it was pretty strident and very partisan, perhaps very broad-brush ... but at least it was comparing translations and understandings, at least it was trying to examine the data - however clumsily.
Sure, it had an agenda - we all do - but it went beyond saying, 'Well, it's obvious because I say so ...' or 'It's obvious because it's in the Bible and the Bible says exactly what I think it does ... or want it to ...'
Don't get me wrong, I come from within the evangelical tradition, I have a lot of sympathy for the views Mudfrog has expressed, that Kaplan has outlined. The difficulty for me is that neither of them seem to appreciate that the verses they've cited can be understood in different ways to how they themselves understand them ...
What I want to get at is how and why different traditions understand these verses in different ways. To do that I need to listen to what they have to say.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Martin60 quote:
Kwesi: a fine example in the landlord's son, but we're still left with a murderously grieving landlord who CANNOT be appeased! This swirls all over the place in the text and in our mainly irrational minds. The irredeamable darkness of it all!
........but read on: "he [David} spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it.....“Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”
When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2).
In other words the eschatological ending to the parable for Peter, at least, has been set aside by Jesus, who offers forgiveness to those who repent and are baptised.
Incidentally, this is an interesting take on the cross because it sees salvation as being necessitated by the complicity of humanity in the death of Christ. The critical element is the refusal of the God to be defeated by the evil of men: Jesus is raised by him and forgiveness is offered to humanity. Personally, I'm attracted to this narrative because it gives a centrality to the Resurrection, which in Western (?) soteriology seems to be little more than a footnote.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
I would add the small observation that as he is crucified Jesus says "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.", not "Forgive them, Father, for I am dying in their place as a punishment for their sins in crucifying me."
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I would add the small observation that as he is crucified Jesus says "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.", not "Forgive them, Father, for I am dying in their place as a punishment for their sins in crucifying me."
In and of itself, though, Karl, that observation neither proves nor disproves PSA - nor any other of the various atonement theories come to that ...
As I've observed upthread, none of the available models on their own can possibly cover all bases or cut the mustard.
God transcends everything.
God is God. It is up to him who he forgives and whether he forgives or not. He is not 'bound' by anything extrinsic to himself.
He is not bound by anything. Full-stop.
He doesn't 'have' to do this, that or the other.
He didn't 'need' to create us. He is entirely sufficient unto Himself. In bringing the Universe into being he wasn't doing so because he was lonely or because he was at an eternal loose-end ...
So any model that seeks to limit what God can and cannot do is bound to fall short - although of course, we must add the proviso that God cannot sin as that is against his nature.
Everything God does and is surely confirms with his nature, if we can put it that way and we can only talk about these things at all by using analogies, metaphors and anthropomorphisms to some extent ...
So, we see no particular atonement model at all in 'Father forgive them ...' nor do we see repentance, baptism nor whatever else ...
But we do find data that we can begin to examine and discuss when we look at the scriptures as a whole. The scriptures talk of repentance and faith, the scriptures talk of baptism, the scriptures use analogies that appear to draw on concepts like ransom, sacrifice and so on ... and yes, depending on how we interpret the references, propitiation, expiation and so on ...
We can no more isolate Christ's words from the Cross from the rest of the NT than we can pick out our 'favourite' verses to fight the corner for whatever our 'favourite' atonement model happens to be - whether it's CV, PSA, Moral Influence or whatever else ...
Because even if we can make them all 'fit' there'll still be loose-ends and still be aspects we find hard to reconcile or shoe-horn into place.
That's bound to be the case, whatever our particular understanding happens to be.
That doesn't mean that it's impossible to say anything about it or that it's pointless even trying to come to a conclusion. Far from it.
What it does mean is that we have to hold all the threads together as far as we can and also listen to the viewpoints of those who may be tying the threads together in a way that differs from our own. That doesn't mean that we are all going to agree on everything, of course not.
But it does mean that we are less likely to tie the knots into a flail which we then use to beat one another about the head with until one or t'other of us gives in and says, 'Right, that's it, I'm dropping my threads and my knots and accepting yours because you've whipped me into it ...'
No, it's a case of lying the threads on the table and seeing what knots we can make out of them when we try to tie up the loose ends. We may find even more knots than we anticipated. We may find that some we thought were useful weren't. We may find that we need to combine some, and reject others.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
PSA: God the Father is a stern judge who condemns us to death for our sin
God condemns sin. He loves us but we are collateral damage if we cannot be separated from sin. As stated on the CV thread years ago, the issue only bites if sin is underestimated as an evil force. . It is God's non negotiable. No compromise is possible with sin or it would wreck his universe and destroy his essential nature. Pretty well all criticism of PSA is by people who misunderstand this or don't personally realise it.
As noted above, this is a strawman. NONE of the theories being discussed here-- particularly ransom and CV-- suggests that we don't get the evil, destructive consequences of sin. ALL the theories hinge on the fact that sin is so costly that it requires nothing less than the death of God's only son. NONE of the theories suggest that we can "save ourselves" or that sin is not an evil, destructive source of the brokenness, chaos and pain of this world. Again, it cost the life of the messiah-- that is true whether the cost is paid to appease a wrathful Father (PSA) or whether it's true to ransom us from the Evil One. It is the same price in any and all of the theories so this suggestion is simply not on point.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
As Paul states Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners of whom 'he' was chief. Paul strongly implies that forgiveness is contingent upon the fact that Christ is the propitiatory sacrifice for the sin of humanity, individual by individual.
Certainly Paul uses the language of propitiatory sacrifice in several places, particularly Romans. Almost everyone on this thread has acknowledged that substitution is a biblical metaphor, altho some have disputed whether or not Paul is depicting penal substitution.
But where you are falling short is in recognizing that PSA is NOT the only metaphor for the atonement found in Scripture. It's not even the most common one, Ransom is probably the most common metaphor, found in both Jesus' teachings as well as a strong element in Hebrews:
quote:
• Matt. 20:28: Just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.
• John 8:34: Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.
• Heb. 9:15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance — now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
But then there's this strongly CV verse in Hebrews:
quote:
• Heb. 2:14-15, 18: he himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death… Because he himself was tested by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested.
Even Paul does not limit himself to PSA, but utilizes a number of metaphors, including CV:
quote:
• 2 Tim. 1:9-10: This grace was given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Paul strongly implies that forgiveness is contingent upon the fact that Christ is the propitiatory sacrifice for the sin of humanity, individual by individual. If one leaves out that element, one departs from The true church. One may consider oneself a believer but in fact the belief is in a lie. One may protest at the judgement seat but it will be in vain. Your name is in the book or it is not. If you choose to atone for your own sin, you are betting your life on your righteousness and according to scripture,it will not be sufficient.
Wow.
Obviously you are free to define "true church" however you like, but you are cutting off millions of Christians there, including pretty much the entire first millennia of Christianity. Glad you're not the one making the final call. Because, again, it's a strawman. CV, ransom, satisfaction are NOT "betting your life on your righteousness". They are ALL dependent upon the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to pay the price to ransom us from sin. Again, the key distinction is WHO the ransom is paid to not why or by whom. And with that key distinction the very different depiction of the disposition of God the Father towards sinners.
Again, I think the clearest picture we have of the Father is the Son. Jesus himself says this in John 10:30, John 14:9, etc. The problem with treating PSA as a literal transaction rather than one of several metaphors is that is presents a picture of the Father that is very different from the picture of the Son-- the Father is a stern and wrathful judge, while the Son is a merciful and caring advocate. The advantage of ransom and CV is that the disposition of the different members of the Trinity is consistent-- Jesus' atoning work is the natural and ultimate expression of the heart of God-- to move TO and FOR sinners to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. For both the Son and the Father, the prime disposition towards sin is one of deep grief for the destruction and alienation it causes. God is our rescuer-- something attested to throughout the OT and NT.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Guys, you're not talking to my irrational id monster. Or anybody else's. Somebody got whacked because of me. It's all my fault. I'm so guilty. I'm so ashamed. It was bad enough before the death of Christ, but now!!
I'm not talking to you because you make zero sense. What does the above even mean?
I apologize. A decade and more ago, on a similar thread, I argued viscerally for my personal need for the sacrifice of Christ. I accepted that nothing else would do. I saw it in all terms including and especially PSA. It was a big, heavy deal. I was going through my neo-Evangelical period. I'm now years beyond that, all my conservative thinking has fallen away. But not my feelings. Not the reflexes. The viscera. Will that do?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Jamat quote:
One may consider oneself a believer but in fact the belief is in a lie. One may protest at the judgement seat but it will be in vain.
What I find most significant about this quote is that it equates saving faith as belief in a certain set of propositions that will be tested for their accuracy on the last day. That is why Jamat is so concerned that he should get his theory of salvation right, otherwise he is doomed to eternal torture, and explains why he is so reluctant to consider other points of view. If, however, faith is understood as trust in Jesus Christ, then ignorance of the finer points of soteriology are inconsequential. The apostle reminds us that "we know in part and prophecy in part..." Don't worry Jamat, you are certainly in error like the rest of us, but it won't be held against you.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Kwesi: an excellent quantum leap. And of course the Acts account of the Jews realising that they had murdered their Messiah was in my mind and that they, we need iteratively saving from having done ... that which led to the revelation of our salvation and what we should do in its light.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, it's the check-list sound-bite approach common across certain strands of fundamentalist evangelicalism, where everything is reduced almost to the level of simple mental assent to a set of propositions.
As if St Peter is stood there at the Pearly Gates with a clip-board saying, 'The atonement: Penal substitutionary; Christ Victor; The Ransom Theory or Moral influence?'
Check ...
'Eschatology: A-millenial; Pre-Millenial or Post-Millenial?'
Check ...
And so on ...
It explains the popularity of Chick Tracts.
I can certainly understand the appeal. We all want certainty. Ultimately, though it doesn't become salvation by grace through faith but salvation by mental assent to what its proponents consider to be sound doctrine.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Jamat quote:
One may consider oneself a believer but in fact the belief is in a lie. One may protest at the judgement seat but it will be in vain.
What I find most significant about this quote is that it equates saving faith as belief in a certain set of propositions that will be tested for their accuracy on the last day. That is why Jamat is so concerned that he should get his theory of salvation right, otherwise he is doomed to eternal torture, and explains why he is so reluctant to consider other points of view. If, however, faith is understood as trust in Jesus Christ, then ignorance of the finer points of soteriology are inconsequential. The apostle reminds us that "we know in part and prophecy in part..." Don't worry Jamat, you are certainly in error like the rest of us, but it won't be held against you.
well said, Kwesi, and spot on I think.
It seems clear to me that the disciples and early Christians didn't have all their systematic theology worked out. It took a couple of centuries for the early Church to work out an "orthodox" understanding of the incarnation, the Trinity, and yes, the atonement. But they had a profound and proven trust in Jesus-- so much so that many were willing to die for him. And trusting in him includes trusting in the last day: He is on our side.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And right on right believing as opposed to right belief in your latest post Kwesi.
And Gamaliel
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
It has a long pedegtee, salvation by theology. Quicunque vult anyone?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Host
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
if what you are calling a "penalty" might include an element of punishment [...] then you have PSA - or something very like it
No-- you only get PSA if the penalty is paid/owed to God. If the penalty is owed/paid to Satan you've got either ransom or CV. And that's really the point at which the objections to PSA hinge-- not on whether or not there is a price to be paid for sin, but rather who the price is paid to.
I think I follow what you mean, but I don't think you're distinguishing "penalty" (bad consequence generally) from "punishment".
I can see how sin might put us in some way under Satan's power or captivity, and a price might be necessary to free us from that - and yes, that's ransom or CV. But I don't see why Satan has any right to punish in a judicial sense (unless he is God's appointed agent for that purpose). We don't owe Satan obedience, and we don't wrong him by sinning. It is God, not Satan, who has the right specifically to punish for sin. I might be wise to fear Satan's malice, but not his justice.
I can force in the argument that an infinitely merciful God will always forgo the right to punish (except possibly where such punishment is remedial), but I don't always feel confident of that, and as can been seen on this thread, some people would wholly reject the proposition.
PSA, if it does nothing else, silences the felt demand for punishment. Whether you think that demand is, in any particular case, masochistic, vindictive, or wholly just, the cross of Christ answers it. I can't say that the very human death of the incarnate Son of God isn't enough to cancel any call for punishment.
It's not the only atonement theory - I wouldn't argue with the view that union with Christ in his resurrection and triumph is the main emphasis of scripture, not PSA, but I don't see any good reason for rejecting something that answers a real need.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
PSA, if it does nothing else, silences the felt demand for punishment. Whether you think that demand is, in any particular case, masochistic, vindictive, or wholly just, the cross of Christ answers it. I can't say that the very human death of the incarnate Son of God isn't enough to cancel any call for punishment.
But not for justice. As has been pointed out, there is nothing just about killing one man for the blood guilt of another man.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Mousethief;
quote:
As has been pointed out, there is nothing just about killing one man for the blood guilt of another man.
Exactly. Which is why it is important to understand that Jesus is not in this as an external 'innocent third party', but as God incarnate, and that the primary meaning of what's going on is the essentially just business of gracious forgiveness of what is in effect a real debt rather than an arbitrary punishment.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
if what you are calling a "penalty" might include an element of punishment [...] then you have PSA - or something very like it
No-- you only get PSA if the penalty is paid/owed to God. If the penalty is owed/paid to Satan you've got either ransom or CV. And that's really the point at which the objections to PSA hinge-- not on whether or not there is a price to be paid for sin, but rather who the price is paid to.
I think I follow what you mean, but I don't think you're distinguishing "penalty" (bad consequence generally) from "punishment".
I can see how sin might put us in some way under Satan's power or captivity, and a price might be necessary to free us from that - and yes, that's ransom or CV. But I don't see why Satan has any right to punish in a judicial sense (unless he is God's appointed agent for that purpose). We don't owe Satan obedience, and we don't wrong him by sinning. It is God, not Satan, who has the right specifically to punish for sin. I might be wise to fear Satan's malice, but not his justice.
Agreed. I was using "penalty" in the sense of "price" and NOT in the judicial sense to argue that in CV and ransom the price is paid to Satan, not to God.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I can force in the argument that an infinitely merciful God will always forgo the right to punish (except possibly where such punishment is remedial), but I don't always feel confident of that, and as can been seen on this thread, some people would wholly reject the proposition.
PSA, if it does nothing else, silences the felt demand for punishment. Whether you think that demand is, in any particular case, masochistic, vindictive, or wholly just, the cross of Christ answers it. I can't say that the very human death of the incarnate Son of God isn't enough to cancel any call for punishment.
I'm not convinced. But I can't deny that substitution is a biblical metaphor.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It's not the only atonement theory - I wouldn't argue with the view that union with Christ in his resurrection and triumph is the main emphasis of scripture, not PSA, but I don't see any good reason for rejecting something that answers a real need.
Very few here are suggesting it be rejected, most are merely asking that it be treated as one of several metaphors rather than as the one and only, and as a transaction rather than a metaphor. I would agree that it is a biblical metaphor, and therefore must have something of value to bring to the table, although I question whether it meets a "real need". Seems like we have large swaths of Christianity historically that have focused on other biblical metaphors for the atonement and still flourished spiritually.
[ 20. January 2017, 22:21: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Eliab. I believe you're Catholic. I must be a closet heretic one. I LOVE the film Stigmata and even the Omen and the bloody high Anglican nonsense Midwinter of the Spirit I watched last night. What's the one with Walken as Gabriel? Prophecy? And as for books: Pears' An Instance of the Fingerpost. And the Exorcist by William Peyer Blatty. 10 x better than the film. Why do I mention this? What you say has that cinematic-story power.
The felt demand for punishment. Brilliant.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Ooh and John Carpenter's mesmerizing Prince of Darkness.
Funny how I'm slip sliding, to say the least, in to modern depictions of Satan.
This stuff is perversely compelling. Along with punishment.
All very Greek tragedy to Freudian, Lovecraftian. And Woody Allen.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Ooooooh and Polanski's The Ninth Gate. Mr. Depp, Frank Langella and Emmanuelle Seigner!!! (Polanski's missus)
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
ransom theory, which is not related to PSA, is it?
Yes, it is.
Ransom theory and PSA are both ways of expressing the payment of a release price.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The conclusion may be odd
Not so much odd as desperate.
To mix metaphors, you are clutching at straw men.
No advocate of PSA has ever proposed that anyone but Christ could accomplish it, including Milton (whose soteriology encompasses other models as well, such as Irenaeus's recapitulation theory).
It is obvious if you read his descriptions of Christ's person and saving work in Bk12 of Paradise Lost, and Paradise Regained, that he regarded Christ as unique - even allowing for his Arian/Adoptionist/Dynamic Momarchian Christology.
Face it, you are just trying - bizarrely - to discredit PSA by linking it with Arianism via Milton.
It would be just as silly for someone to attempt to discredit Orthodox soteriology in the form of theosis by pointing out that the Orthodox revere Constantine ("Equal to the Apostles";feast day May 21) who, as one church historian put it, "lived as a pagan and died as an Arian".
quote:
Of course, you could step back a step and acknowledge that nobody can freely assume someone else's sin and guilt.
This is a genuine, though not insuperable, objection which can be taken seriously.
Yes , it is difficult, but it is taught in the Bible, and presents no greater problem in conceptualising than do doctrines such as the Trinity and Incarnation, which broad orthodoxy has no problems in accepting, despite the fact that a philosophically sophisticated atheist (or Muslim, for that matter) can make mincemeat of them.
[ 21. January 2017, 01:41: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
ransom theory, which is not related to PSA, is it?
Yes, it is.
Ransom theory and PSA are both ways of expressing the payment of a release price.
Speaking of desperate. What's a "release price"? It sounds like a category made up ad-hoc to tie two disparate things together.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
]This is moving away from PSA and becoming Christus Victor.
That I think falls squarely into the category of what Kaplan Corday calls 'pseudo-mystical waffle'.
It does not fall into the category, squarely or otherwise.
PSA has no problem co-existing with supplementary theories such as Christus Victor, theosis and recapitulationism.
"Pseudo-mystical waffle" is the vain attempt to pretend that Christ's death was a saving sacrifice, while simultaneously denying its saving dynamic - its penal and substitutionary nature.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
The issue is how Christ reconciles the word to himself....It's to do with sacrifice, it's to do with ransom, expiation ... and yes, let's discuss propitiation too ...* it's to do with the Incarnation, it's to do with the Resurrection - it's also to do with Moral Influence and the life and teachings and example of Christ ...
Well stated Gamaliel. And The answer could not be clearer or more 'binary' in that it is 'The Gospel'. But the good news is only good news when one knows why it is necessary. The answer to that is it saves the world, individual by individual,from hell. But how? Because it forgives sin and delivers from sin. (How come there are so few sermons on sin?) But how do I know I am forgiven and delivered? Only if I recognise that Christ, the incarnation of the holy God who existed from eternity absorbed my responsibility, in himself, on the cross. I have a revelation of that, and I ask forgiveness for known sin and I put my trust in it. 1Cor 15:1-4. If I have not done that, then I'm betting there is a back door. But there is not.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
That's all very well and good, Jamat, but it still leaves us with loose ends that remain untied ...
Our Lord appears to have forgiven those who crucified him without any apparent repentance and faith on their part - except perhaps for the Centurion, 'Surely this man was the Son of God ...'
Of course, we don't know what happened to the others, nor do we know what happens to those who never get the opportunity to hear and respond to the Gospel ...
As a wise RC priest once observed to me, 'We don't know where the Rich Young Ruler was on the Day of Pentecost ...'
That's not to get all universalist. I don't believe there is a 'back-door' but God is just and merciful. For all any of us know he might allow people in through the front door when we're not looking ...
For as sure as eggs are eggs we'd all probably do an Elder Brother and point out the faults and failings of the Prodigals ...
'But Lord, they weren't evangelicals, they didn't believe in PSA, they used to pray to Mary and the Saints ... They didn't read their Bibles like I did ... They didn't do this, that or the other like me ...'
Or replace those examples with whatever else is appropriate ... 'They weren't Orthodox ... They weren't RC ... They weren't ...'
Of course, having heard the Gospel it is my responsibility to respond in repentance and faith - what shall become of us if we reject so great a salvation?
At any rate, it seems to me that it's perfectly possible to understand the atonement in ways that are less prescriptive than the standard evangelical one.
Lewis did. Was C S Lewis not 'saved' - as Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones apparently doubted - because he was squeamish about PSA?
Did that mean he was trying to get in by the 'back-door' or that he was trying to justify himself by his own works?
One of the problems I have with a tightly applied evangelical schema is that rather than magnifying grace and mercy it can end up in a kind of Pharisaical judgementalism whereby we take it upon ourselves to pontificate on the eternal destiny of this, that or the other person according to our own set of rather limited criteria - the extent to which they agree with us or conform to the expectations of our own tradition.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Jamat [QUOTE. I have a revelation of that, and I ask forgiveness for known sin and I put my trust in it. 1Cor 15:1-4. If I have not done that, then I'm betting there is a back door. But there is not. [/QUOTE]
Clearly you have had a deep religious experience that speaks to your spirit and has given you the assurance of salvation. It is not my desire or intention to challenge that. What I would ask you to consider is that not all others may share your spirituality but have been led by different routes to the classic Christian experience of sins forgiven and trust in Christ as intense as yours. There may not be a back door into the New Jerusalem, but there are eleven others gates in addition to the one by which any particular individual enters.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
]This is moving away from PSA and becoming Christus Victor.
That I think falls squarely into the category of what Kaplan Corday calls 'pseudo-mystical waffle'.
It does not fall into the category, squarely or otherwise.
PSA has no problem co-existing with supplementary theories such as Christus Victor, theosis and recapitulationism.
"Pseudo-mystical waffle" is the vain attempt to pretend that Christ's death was a saving sacrifice, while simultaneously denying its saving dynamic - its penal and substitutionary nature.
If that is the case, Kaplan, then all non-evangelical Christian traditions must be guilty of 'pseudo-mystical waffle'.
How are your explanations of the atonement any less 'pseudo-mystical' or any less 'waffle' than anyone else's?
And don't say, 'Because mine is closer to the scriptures ...' because everyone here is using the scriptures as the basis for what they believe, but that doesn't mean everyone is going to come to the exact same conclusion as to what they tell us about these issues.
Whether you agree with its conclusions or not, it's salutary to read the rather strident Orthodox article that mr cheesy found which tries to dismantle a juridical understanding of Isaiah 53 using comparisons between translations. Is that pseudo-mystical waffle or is it an attempt to roll up the sleeves and do some work on the source texts?
If people have an issue with PSA it's not necessarily because they are lazy or seeking to justify themselves or because they want to slide the very deadly consequences of sin ...
It could be that they've simply arrived at a different conclusion on these things.
That's not to trivialise matters and reduce these weighty issues down to a set of menu options.
But it is to acknowledge good faith on the part of all involved - whatever side they take.
FWIW I think Dafyd over-stated his case with the Miltonic example - but his grounds for 'discrediting' PSA as you put it, are not primarily Miltonic.
Dafyd has other objections and other examples. As do others who do not believe that PSA is an adequate or wholy adequate way of understanding these things.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The conclusion may be odd
Face it, you are just trying - bizarrely - to discredit PSA by linking it with Arianism via Milton.
How about you address the arguments I put forward?
quote:
quote:
Of course, you could step back a step and acknowledge that nobody can freely assume someone else's sin and guilt.
This is a genuine, though not insuperable, objection which can be taken seriously.
You are not showing any signs of taking it seriously. Nor are you giving any reasons to think it is not insuperable.
quote:
Yes , it is difficult, but it is taught in the Bible, and presents no greater problem in conceptualising than do doctrines such as the Trinity and Incarnation, which broad orthodoxy has no problems in accepting, despite the fact that a philosophically sophisticated atheist (or Muslim, for that matter) can make mincemeat of them.
I have asked you twice now to give evidence that PSA is taught in the Bible.
I believe The Trinity and Incarnation are entirely defensible even from philosophically sophisticated atheists (or Muslims for that matter). Depending on the quality of the defence of course.
quote:
"Pseudo-mystical waffle" is the vain attempt to pretend that Christ's death was a saving sacrifice, while simultaneously denying its saving dynamic - its penal and substitutionary nature.
In other words it is whatever you say it is.
Once again, would you like put forward any argument for this position?
[ 21. January 2017, 09:05: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
OK KC: '"Pseudo-mystical waffle" is the vain attempt to pretend that Christ's death was a saving sacrifice, while simultaneously denying its saving dynamic - its penal and substitutionary nature.'.
My attempt is not vain.
After my visceral defense of PSA, or even in it, I actually moved on to realise that it was post-hoc to the fact of Christ's peerless unconditional and ultimately un-transactional NON-salvific sacrifice.
I feel dread at saying that, but it's the only thing that makes any sense of Love.
Bonhoffer's free, universal, prevenient, not cheap grace.
Jesus does what He says on the tin and the proof of that is His death and resurrection. Jesus is the living proof of eternal life. Of meaning. That there isn't anything God wouldn't do for us in our complete autonomy to show that we are all purposed in His love. In Him. What won't He do therefore in the resurrection of all the dead to paradise to bring us to transcendence?
There is NOTHING transactional in salvation, in Him, in love. Salvation is inextricable from creation, perichoretic. From the beginning. Not availed by writhing, desperate, grovelling sinners' prayers.
PSA and all other atonement theories, all the stuff we make up, are after and even before the fact of the atonement. Of salvation regardless.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Well, Martin, I agree with you... almost. I agree that salvation is the natural and inevitable consequence of who God is. So much so, that were there any other "consequence", God could not be the same God as the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, that does not, of necessity, mean that said salvation does not have an objective "mechanism". I think to reject this is to eject the infant with the soap-suds, and, in this context, I can understand KC's ridiculing of "pseudo-mystical waffle".
So I believe, and think the Bible teaches, that the Atonement is transactional and that there is a salvific sacrifice involved. I just don't agree with, in this case, KC, about what that transaction is, or about the nature of the sacrifice. Rather, I believe that PSA is predicated on the wrong assumption, that is, that the human problem is that we, as a race and as individuals, are, by because of our sin, the subject of God's wrath, and that this wrath can only be appeased by punishment. Of course, sin is serious and ultimately deadly for us, but for God, far from being some existential problem which compels Him to sacrifice His Son to deal with it, it is instead an opportunity to exercise his nature in forgiveness (Felix culpa*), which He Has always, and will always do, with or without the crucification. The problem is that, even as forgiven people, we are still dying because our nature as children of God has been corrupted by sin. The problem is not so much moral as medical. Though forgiven, we are enslaved by our sinful nature, and without Divine intervention, we are eternally perishing. The transaction, therefore, is that, through the cross, Jesus defeats the power of death, it's sting, which is sin, and through the resurrection imparts to us His eternal life. The sacrifice is the sacrifice that looks back to the OT as ratification of the covenant, that God is for His people - God will provide the sacrifice, as Abraham was told.
*happy or fortunate fault
--------------------
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
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Jolly Jape quote:
God will provide the sacrifice, as Abraham was told.
...........but note that the sacrifice provided by God was an animal substitute for a human being. The whole purpose of that story in Genesis was to show that Jehovah was not a God who demanded human sacrifice. What are we to make of that narrative when linking it to the death of Jesus?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
2. PSA: God the Father is a stern judge who condemns us to death for our sin. Jesus the Son is a compassionate brother who pays the price for our sin. As mentioned before, this suggests a biforcation within the persons of the trinity: Jesus' disposition towards us is compassion, but the disposition of the Father towards us is one of wrath that must be appeased.
Those are two very, very different views of God. That's no small difference.
And again, that does not take into account the fact that Jesus is God Incarnate and not some divinely chosen 'other'. The fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily in Jesus even on the cross - the Judge becomes the Judged. God (the Father) was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.
The abandonment on the cross and the cry of dereliction was very real because it was at that moment when both Father and Son experienced humanity's own permanent state of alienation and enmity with God. Jesus took on the sin of the world and, in his suffering and death made an atonement between God and man, whilst the Father, in the words of Moltmann, 'suffered the loss of his Son' as he judged the sin that was poured out on Jesus 'who became sin for us'.
It was not
[ 24. January 2017, 00:06: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
woops... to continue:
It was not a case of the vengeful 'angry' Father standing aloof and stern in Heaven while his gentle, innocent Son was made to satisfy his temper; the Father in love was involved in that sacrifice and Jesus was the willing substitute who was already 'the lamb slain from the foundation of the world'.
I would also suggest that the wrath of God was also an attitude held by Jesus and that by the Son shouldering the sin of the world, he was also satisfying his own wrath as part of the Godhead.
One simply cannot divide the purpose and nature of the trinity, even if it is only the Son who actually suffers the wrath of God.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I would also suggest that the wrath of God was also an attitude held by Jesus and that by the Son shouldering the sin of the world, he was also satisfying his own wrath as part of the Godhead.
One simply cannot divide the purpose and nature of the trinity, even if it is only the Son who actually suffers the wrath of God.
This whole thing of the Son having wrath on himself and punishing himself has two unfortunate consequences:
1. It makes the crucifixion into suicide, and
2. It makes Jesus sound like one of those people who don't think that foot is theirs, and they cut it off.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
that does not, of necessity, mean that said salvation does not have an objective "mechanism"....
... for God, far from being some existential problem which compels Him to sacrifice His Son to deal with it, it is instead an opportunity to exercise his nature in forgiveness (Felix culpa*), which He Has always, and will always do, with or without the crucification.[sic]
To our modern Western mindset, the idea of an atoning blood sacrifice is at best embarrassing and at worst abhorrent, and we would prefer that God would simply forgive out of his forgiving nature.
But the NT (eg Eph.1:7; Col.1:14; Heb.9:22) clearly teaches that sacrifice is insparable from forgiveness, and the only "mechanism" which makes sense of this is PSA.
quote:
through the cross, Jesus defeats the power of death, it's sting, which is sin, and through the resurrection imparts to us His eternal life.
Christus Victor is certainly part of Christ's work, indeed integral to it (eg Ro.4:25), but does not stand alone.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It makes the crucifixion into suicide
The NT makes it inescapably clear that Jesus chose to sacrifice himself: "Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends".
If you choose to characterise this as suicide, that is your problem.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Suicide is voluntary. One may lay down one's life as a response to circumstance which isn't voluntary.
For instance, someone who stands up to thugs to defend a child and dies in the act may be said to have laid down their life, but it isn't suicide. Even if they faced hopeless odds.
If, on the other hand, they provoked the fight with the thugs without a response to circumstance one could call that "suicide by thug" or something.
In short, laying down one's life doesn't necessarily equate to suicide.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I think Mousethief might be highlighting the discontinuity rather than questioning whether or not laying down of a life* is in-and-of-itself suicide.
That discontinuity is that God needed to come to earth and die for the sake of his own wrath.
* incidentally, I've long thought that this idea of a blood payment does not really work for the atonement anyway. If you are arguing for PSA, then what exactly is Jesus' death doing? People die all the time - some in the most digusting way, and some not deserving it. So he is the one who is man-and-God who is crucified. What about that makes it the "perfect sacrifice"?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
What I'm saying is that if God is responding to circumstances by laying down his life then that isn't suicide. If he is creating the circumstances that require his life then he it is suicide.
Hence if God is the recipient and author of wrath as the proximate cause of death that seems like suicide.
There is a question about how proximate one goes I suppose - in a sense God is the author of everything but there's no point getting all theodicean every time it's relevant to a discussion.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Hence if God is the recipient and author of wrath as the proximate cause of death that seems like suicide.
There is a question about how proximate one goes I suppose - in a sense God is the author of everything but there's no point getting all theodicean every time it's relevant to a discussion.
Oookay, but assuming we're all believers in the Trinity, then that proximity is as close as it is possible to get, no?
We're not talking about "God" being a family-name where the senior member of the family sends his least-favourite nephew to earth and then decides to strike him down to prove a point that nobody can fully work out for 1500 years.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
To my mind "laying down one's life" does not necessarily imply suicide, and can be rendered as "putting one's life on the line." ISTM that the latter construction most closely fits the gospel narratives.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I would also suggest that the wrath of God was also an attitude held by Jesus and that by the Son shouldering the sin of the world, he was also satisfying his own wrath as part of the Godhead.
One simply cannot divide the purpose and nature of the trinity, even if it is only the Son who actually suffers the wrath of God.
This whole thing of the Son having wrath on himself and punishing himself has two unfortunate consequences:
1. It makes the crucifixion into suicide,
Well, at risk of being accused of proof-texting, I offer these verses to suggest that whilst not exactly suicide, it seems that Jesus was fully intent of placing himself in the situation where death was inevitable. He planned it.
quote:
Matthew 20:25-29 New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition (NRSVACE)
...the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.’
quote:
John 10:18 New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition (NRSVACE)
17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again. I have received this command from my Father.’
quote:
Galatians 2:20 New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition (NRSVACE)
20 and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me .
[ 24. January 2017, 08:50: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
