|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Moral Influence atonement theology
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
I agree with you, Mudfrog, that the death of Christ was not suicide. Would you also agree that the texts you quote in refutation of Mousethief and the bits you underline do not exclusively advance the case for PSA? Moreover, I don't think Mousethief believes Jesus commuted suicide. What he is suggesting is that PSA is dangerously close to such a position. The quotations you offer, therefore, in refutation of suicide might be thought to make PSA less tenable than you assume.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I agree with you, Mudfrog, that the death of Christ was not suicide. Would you also agree that the texts you quote in refutation of Mousethief and the bits you underline do not exclusively advance the case for PSA? Moreover, I don't think Mousethief believes Jesus commuted suicide. What he is suggesting is that PSA is dangerously close to such a position. The quotations you offer, therefore, in refutation of suicide might be thought to make PSA less tenable than you assume.
Yes, I fully acknowledge that none of the texts are specifically about PSA. That wasn't my reason for choosing them. I was simply highlighting the deliberate, voluntary nature of the death of Jesus.
I do not accept that PSA 'comes dangerously close to such a position' (of being suicide) because if, as you say those verses are not PSA verses, then that would also 'accuse' ransom, moral influence, Christus Victor, etc, etc of all being suicide as well, because they all assume a willing self-giving, a deliberate act of placing himself in the path of a potentially avoidable death.
None of those verses - ransom, for example, makes PSA less tenable.
All atonement theories are truth in parallel.
They are all correct indvidually. They do not need one another, they do not feed off another, they d not deny or destroy the efficacy of any of the others.
Well they all require, however, is that Jesus went willing to a death that he expected, welcomed and required for his stated work of atonement to be accomplished.
Had his execution on the cross been a tragic event due to unforeseen circumstances, then there would have been n atonement. It had to be deliberate.
The Father gave the Son to die.
The Son gave his life.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Does 'tragic event due to unforeseen circumstances' mean anything if you're God?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
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.
The passage from Romans 6 that I quoted earlier describes a mechanism that makes sense of it. Whether or not it is compatible with PSA (it isn't for reasons I gave) is to some extent beside the point. The point is that it makes sense on its own without PSA; it doesn't need PSA.
PSA does not make sense of anything, because PSA does not make sense on its own terms. If the best defence of a position you can muster is, 'According to God it works. Take it up with God,' then you've conceded that it does not make sense of anything.
Furthermore, any theory of the atonement that can be found in the Bible can be defended as making sense of sacrifice on those terms. The moral influence theory can be defended by saying 'According to God, it makes sense. Take it up with God.' If you claim that the Romans 6 passage I quoted does not stand up without PSA, I can simply respond 'According to God it does. Take it up with God'.
By playing the 'Take it up with God' card, you have abandoned any credibility for any 'it is the only mechanism that makes sense' argument.
[ 24. January 2017, 09:59: 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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Does 'tragic event due to unforeseen circumstances' mean anything if you're God?
I have seen and heard many people say that the execution of Jesus was a tragic mistake and should never happened, but that God turned it to good - as if he himself were the victim of circumstance and 'it all came right in the end.'
--------------------
"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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The richest, most challenging, controversial, disturbing thread.
It struck this chord.
I quake at what I've said, can't think or pray on it, can only work it out here.
Much to respond to from everyone, I intend to starting with your reply Jolly Jape.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
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.
Well, if you continually fail to provide evidence for your assertions beyond, 'This is what it all means because I say so ...' then that's your problem, Kaplan.
I come from a tradition that strongly emphases PSA. For my money, John Stott makes the best defence of it I've come across in 'The Cross of Christ'.
For my money too, Mudfrog is making a good fist of clearing PSA proponents of some of the charges commonly levelled against them ie that they have a bifurcated view of the Trinity, that they oppose a loving, gentle God the Son against a cantankerous and judgemental God the Father ... and leave God the Holy Spirit wiggling around as some kind of after-thought ...
I'm afraid I don't see a great deal of rigour in your arguments. They simply seem to boil down to, 'The Bible teaches it, it's obvious ... if you don't see it the same way as I do then that's your problem ... it's all the fault of nasty Western liberalism ...'
Mousethief isn't coming at this from a Western liberal perspective at all. He's coming at it from an Eastern Orthodox one where the juridical assumptions and emphases we tend to apply in the West don't figure in the overall scheme of things.
You haven't even begun to address that.
All you've done is stamp your feet and claim that the way you read and interpret scripture is THE way that everyone should read and interpret it.
'It's so blindingly obvious that there must be something wrong with anyone who doesn't see it the way I do ...'
Well, it's not blindingly obvious to Dafyd and it's not blindingly obvious to Mousethief.
If you want to convince either of them that your way is the best way - or the only 'correct' way - to interpret these things then you are going to have to do better than this ...
I don't see anyone here claiming that there wasn't anything sacrificial in Christ's death on the cross - 'the righteous for the unrighteous'. What people are questioning is the extent to which it is or isn't 'penal' in the sense of God in Christ absorbing in Himself the penalty for sin.
Some of us here are convinced that this is the case. Others aren't.
We have to explore why that is the case rather than jumping to rash conclusions such as, 'Well, they obviously don't read the Bible properly ...' or 'They are obviously influenced by squeamish Western liberalism ...
It.ain't.that.simple.
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
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.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Oookay, but assuming we're all believers in the Trinity, then that proximity is as close as it is possible to get, no?
Well exactly. Hence the characterization as suicide. It's only not suicide if God is responding to something inevitable and deep that doesn't immediately originate in God. If for instance there's something about the way the universe is, and the actions that human created beings have taken, that means the best option now involves his death than I don't see that as fairly characterized as suicide.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Does 'tragic event due to unforeseen circumstances' mean anything if you're God?
I have seen and heard many people say that the execution of Jesus was a tragic mistake and should never happened, but that God turned it to good - as if he himself were the victim of circumstance and 'it all came right in the end.'
In a sense, that's not a million miles away from the medieval 'Felix Culpa' idea - the Fall as something tragic yet which worked for our good in the end ...
A good example can be found in the medieval carol, 'Adam lay y-bounden ...'
Although I won't expect you to necessarily agree with its conclusion - that if the apple had never taken been, never would Our Lady been Heaven's Queen ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
However we cut it, though, we are told that Christ was killed 'at the hands of wicked men' but that this was according to 'God's set purpose and foreknowledge'.
Acts 2:23
http://bibleapps.com/acts/2-23.htm
This doesn't mean that God the Father 'killed' Jesus, in the sense that he somehow 'inspired' the scourging, nailing and the hanging on the tree - but it does mean that God, being God, knew all about it and 'intended' it in some mysterious way - through a combination of direct and indirect circumstances.
God didn't kill Jesus. Wicked men did.
There's a whole load of mind-blowing stuff going on here that doesn't fit into the binary categories of 'Jesus committed suicide' nor 'It was all some kind of terrible mistake ...'
For my money, the Orthodox tend to deal with issues like this - providence, 'accident' and 'design' better than some Western approaches that seem to tumble into some kind of fatalistic and wooden determinism on the one hand or else into an overly 'Open' Theism on the other where God seems to be able to be caught by surprise ...
And I apologise to Cliffdweller if I'm over-simplifying the Open Theist position, as I'm sure I am doing ... just as I apologise to any Calvinists here if I've over-simplified their approach ...
At the risk of fighting Mousethief's corner for him - and he's perfectly capable of holding his own - it seems to me that Eastern theology is able to deal with these things more elegantly as it's not hampered by some of the assumptions we Westerners bring to the table ...
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Does 'tragic event due to unforeseen circumstances' mean anything if you're God?
Maybe foreseen but inescapable rather than unforeseen.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Does 'tragic event due to unforeseen circumstances' mean anything if you're God?
Maybe foreseen but inescapable rather than unforeseen.
Does "foresee" mean anything if you're God?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I think omniscience is classically in the Almighty's JD, yes.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
If God incarnate in Jesus is 'the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world then that has two implications:
1)
The Son of God was 'dead' already, within the heart of God.
2)
The execution of Jesus was the visible, physical 'time and space' outworking of the Lamb already slain. It was the sacrament of an eternal truth.
2)
Being 'like God' now means being aquainted with death - part of the knowledge of good and evil'.
Genesis 3 v 22.
--------------------
"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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Does 'tragic event due to unforeseen circumstances' mean anything if you're God?
I have seen and heard many people say that the execution of Jesus was a tragic mistake and should never happened, but that God turned it to good - as if he himself were the victim of circumstance and 'it all came right in the end.'
I don't think that's the case with the cross, since it doesn't fit with any of the overall metaphors/biblical understandings of the atonement. But clearly we do think there are "tragic mistakes" (or sin/ disobedience) that God does not want but we trust according to Rom. 8, God can act in and thru them. Just don't think the atonement fits that pattern.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Gamaliel quote:
However we cut it, though, we are told that Christ was killed 'at the hands of wicked men' but that this was according to 'God's set purpose and foreknowledge'.
'Foreknowledge" is not the same as 'intention' or 'desire'. 'Set purpose', sometimes translated as 'plan', depends on what was the 'purpose' or the 'plan'. To my mind the purpose was atonement by whatever means necessary. That it took the cross was appalling.
The text you quote, as you are aware, is part of Peter's sermon at Pentecost, and as I've pointed out before the climax is when Peter charges the assembled Jews and Proselytes with the murder of the Messiah. In other words they are charged with moral, if not blasphemous, culpability for the crucifixion. The force of that argument would be vitiated if they had simply been ciphers in a sequence of events determined (planned) by God.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I get that Kwesi, but then there's also the reference Mudfrog made to the Lamb 'slain before the foundation of the earth' ... or 'from the foundation of the earth' as some versions have it.
Whatever else we may take that to mean it seems to imply more than foreknowledge and suggests some kind of intentionality ...
But again - these are mysterious things and I'm forced back onto my usual both/and rationalisation ...
I remember a Bible study group once when someone produced some postcards of artworks (shock, horror for the uber-Protestants) to help with the discussion. One was a Romanesque sculpture from medieval France, possibly Autun, I can't remember - but it had - rather unusually - a figure of God the Father with a halo containing a cruciform motif.
Someone observed that this seemed to underline the point that the Cross was somehow 'in the mind of God' from eternity.
Thing is, God is outside of time anyway, he seems to 'be' in some kind of Eternal Now if we can put it that way - past, present and future aren't 'linear' to Him in the way they are to us ... so on one level it's all very speculative and academic to even apply our own temporal concerns to the Almighty.
I'm treading carefully ... these things are areas where we should indeed 'walk softly', I think.
Whatever our respective understandings are they are all bound to be inadequate.
Nevertheless, we can still discuss ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
The interesting thing about it all, of course, is that up to the very second that Pilate washed his hands, Jesus was in total control. He didn't just walk into the trap, he stayed there waiting for it to spring.
The arrest, the trial, everything from Palm Sunday until Barabbas was set free, was controlled by Jesus. The Jewish leaders did as expected of them according to their prejudices - they were not made to kill Jesus, but Jesus wilfully, deliberately, encouraged them to set up the illegal trial, to force Pilate's hand, etc, etc; and Jesus by his willing acquiescence to what they were doing, just let them get on with it.
Every opportunity was given to him to get away, to go back to Galilee and to be safe.
But he took not one chance to go back.
He stood in front of the train and the train inevitably hit him.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Every opportunity was given to him to get away, to go back to Galilee and to be safe.
But he took not one chance to go back.
But why not? Not because he had a death wish, but because there were deeper reasons why he had to die beyond the immediate temporal one of Pilate's jurisdiction.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Every opportunity was given to him to get away, to go back to Galilee and to be safe.
But he took not one chance to go back.
But why not? Not because he had a death wish, but because there were deeper reasons why he had to die beyond the immediate temporal one of Pilate's jurisdiction.
Exactly! He had to die. There is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Every opportunity was given to him to get away, to go back to Galilee and to be safe.
But he took not one chance to go back.
But why not? Not because he had a death wish, but because there were deeper reasons why he had to die beyond the immediate temporal one of Pilate's jurisdiction.
Exactly! He had to die. There is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood.
But why is there no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. You,(I would guess- I don't want to put words in your mouth) would say it is because there is a penal element to the Atonement. I would say it's because of the covenant, ratified by sacrificial commitment on the part of God, is sealed with blood. OT sacrifice is not penal. The scapegoat is released to go free, not slain. The blood is a symbol of God's commitment to humankind, and, furthermore, the initiative and execution are all on God's part. This explains why Isaiah and Amos are so offended by the idea that by going through the sacrificial motions are in any way adequate to bring reconciliation between man and God. It isn't the sacrifice that matters, the sacrifice is only intended to recall, to bring into the very present, the covenant of grace, which is wholly God's initiative. Hence, Holy Communion.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Exactly! He had to die. There is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood.
Rubbish, what a thoroughly unbiblical and unchristlike idea. Have you read the gospels? How often did someone only get forgiveness when they shed some blood?
Answer - never.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Well first of all, it's the Bible itself that says
quote:
In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Hebrews 9 v 22
God himself said, quote:
For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.
Leviticus 17 v 11
How is the scapegoat not a picture of PSA?
The sin is placed on the goat and it is sent away to die in the desert - cut off from the herd, rejected.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Jesus forgave people. How exactly did he do that if blood was required? How many people he forgave first shed blood?
C'mon, name one gospel character that Jesus forgave who first met the blood sacrifice requirement.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Exactly! He had to die. There is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood.
Rubbish, what a thoroughly unbiblical and unchristlike idea. Have you read the gospels? How often did someone only get forgiveness when they shed some blood?
Answer - never.
Don't be ignorant.
The people in the Gospels were Jews. They lived under the Torah - the entire sacrificial system and the day of Atonement - everything - was centred around that great big building in Jerusalem - what was it again? Oh yes, the Temple with the big altar in it on which thousands of animals were killed as sacrifices for sins.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Don't be ignorant.
Don't call me ignorant.
quote:
The people in the Gospels were Jews. They lived under the Torah - the entire sacrificial system and the day of Atonement - everything - was centred around that great big building in Jerusalem - what was it again? Oh yes, the Temple with the big altar in it on which thousands of animals were killed as sacrifices for sins.
If the temple sacrifice was sufficient, then Jesus wouldn't have needed to make a point of telling people they were forgiven.
Funnily enough, I have a pretty good knowledge of the New Testament despite you telling me I'm being ignorant.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Jesus forgave people. How exactly did he do that if blood was required? How many people he forgave first shed blood?
C'mon, name one gospel character that Jesus forgave who first met the blood sacrifice requirement.
He forgave by very virtue of the fact that he was the Lamb of God who takes away (through his own sacrifice) the sins of the world. The Son of Man has authority to forgive sins! He IS the sacrifice.
People were forgiven by virtue of what he was to do - he was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
My God what do they teach you in your church?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The sin is placed on the goat and it is sent away to die in the desert - cut off from the herd, rejected.
The goat's set free in the wilderness. Nothing says that it has to be taken all the way out into the desert. There's nothing about the goat dying (except in the Holman Hunt painting). Goats are pretty hardy animals.
We're not talking about an environment where everywhere that's fertile is intensively farmed and the rest is desert. The wilderness areas between settlements will be quite large enough to set a goat free in and for the goat to survive (if not caught by a predator).
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
He forgave by very virtue of the fact that he was the Lamb of God who takes away (through his own sacrifice) the sins of the world. The Son of Man has authority to forgive sins! He IS the sacrifice.
He forgave people before the crucifixion.
quote:
People were forgiven by virtue of what he was to do - he was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
My God what do they teach you in your church?
My God, what kind of logic did you learn in Salvation Army school. If the atonement was relevant backwards in time, what was the point of the first testament, temple sacrifice and so on?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
By laying his hands on the head of the goat and confessing the sins of the people, Aaron, as the representative of all the people, identified with the goat and symbolically transferred the people's sins to it...
...The goat is sent away to 'a solitary place' (literally 'a land of cutting off', (Lev 16 v 22) where without a doubt it would be expected to die.
quote:
The idea of death is also suggested merely by the notion of exclusion from the camp.' To be expelled from the camp of Israel...was to experience a living death.' Gordon Wenhm, Genesis 1 - 15, Word Biblical Commentary
Bit the goat's fate has a greater significance than this. Throughout Leviticus we find that to be excluded, or 'cut off', from the camp of Israel was to experience God's punishment for sin (e.g. Lev 7 v 20- 27; 17 v 4-9, 20 v 3, 5-6, et al)
quote:
The references to Leviticus 20 are particularly striking, for here God himself threatens to 'cut off' those who sin.' Wenham
The clear implication is that the goat is depicted in Leviticus 16 v 22 as suffering this fate.
Jeffery, Ovey and Piper, eds. Pierced for our Transgressions, Nottingham, IVP, 2007
--------------------
"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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think omniscience is classically in the Almighty's JD, yes.
It's more the issue of aspect that's exercising me here. If you exist outside of time, then there's no future to foresee. All is present. There is no "what might happen". There is only what happens.
[ 24. January 2017, 16:07: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think omniscience is classically in the Almighty's JD, yes.
It's more the issue of aspect that's exercising me here. If you exist outside of time, then there's no future to foresee. All is present. There is no "what might happen". There is only what happens.
This. Yes.
In every insult, rift and war,
where colour, scorn or wealth divide,
he suffers still, et loves the more,
and lives, though ever crucified.
Brian Wren
To Mr Cheesy, who asks about the sacrifice of Jesus going backwards, as it were; this is why.
Jesus is always the Lamb slain for sins.
The Mosaic sacrifices foreshadowed the final sacrifice of Calvary; they prefigured it, they echoed it in advance, if you like.
Once Jesus died at that moment in history, he fulfilled the law, validating all the had gone before and replacing it with the sacrifice in his own blood.
Consider this: God gave the sacrificial system out of his grace as the means of atonement. Jesus is the Word of God and was also part of that giving of the laws of sacrifice.
They were never useless, though they were in themselves imperfect. It's only because they looked forward to the complete sacrifice of the cross that they had any validity whatsoever.
That's how the priests could pronounce forgiveness.
It's how Jesus himself pronounced forgiveness.
It was all flowing from the cross in our time, and from the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, in eternity.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Consider this: God gave the sacrificial system out of his grace as the means of atonement. Jesus is the Word of God and was also part of that giving of the laws of sacrifice.
They were never useless, though they were in themselves imperfect. It's only because they looked forward to the complete sacrifice of the cross that they had any validity whatsoever.
The very way you are explaining this is straight and temporal. If one thing was imperfect followed by another thing then it can't follow that the subsequent perfect thing was sufficient formerly. That's just logic bozo.
quote:
That's how the priests could pronounce forgiveness.
It's how Jesus himself pronounced forgiveness.
It was all flowing from the cross in our time, and from the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, in eternity.
This sounds a lot move like CV than PSA. In fact if PSA is correct - in any sense - then it cannot possibly operate backwards in time.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Consider this: God gave the sacrificial system out of his grace as the means of atonement. Jesus is the Word of God and was also part of that giving of the laws of sacrifice.
They were never useless, though they were in themselves imperfect. It's only because they looked forward to the complete sacrifice of the cross that they had any validity whatsoever.
The very way you are explaining this is straight and temporal. If one thing was imperfect followed by another thing then it can't follow that the subsequent perfect thing was sufficient formerly. That's just logic bozo.
quote:
That's how the priests could pronounce forgiveness.
It's how Jesus himself pronounced forgiveness.
It was all flowing from the cross in our time, and from the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, in eternity.
This sounds a lot move like CV than PSA. In fact if PSA is correct - in any sense - then it cannot possibly operate backwards in time.
Just read the letter to the Hebrews on a quiet evening sometime.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Just read the letter to the Hebrews on a quiet evening sometime.
Just cut out the sanctimony and we might actually have a reasonable conversation.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Just read the letter to the Hebrews on a quiet evening sometime.
Just cut out the sanctimony and we might actually have a reasonable conversation.
OK Bozo
--------------------
"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
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Gamaliel quote:
hen there's also the reference Mudfrog made to the Lamb 'slain before the foundation of the earth' ... or 'from the foundation of the earth' as some versions have it.
Whatever else we may take that to mean it seems to imply more than foreknowledge and suggests some kind of intentionality ...
But again - these are mysterious things and I'm forced back onto my usual both/and rationalisation ...
So what is your argument?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well first of all, it's the Bible itself that says
quote:
In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Hebrews 9 v 22
God himself said, quote:
For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.
Leviticus 17 v 11
How is the scapegoat not a picture of PSA?
The sin is placed on the goat and it is sent away to die in the desert - cut off from the herd, rejected.
Where does it say the goat was sent away to die? There are any number of ways of killing a goat, but driving them off to live out their presumably happy if somewhat solitary goaty lives doesn't really cut it as a parallel for blood sacrifice. In fact, if there is any domesticated animal that would thrive in the wild, surely it is a goat. They will eat almost anything, and can pretty well hold their own against predators. And, to repeat, the point about sacrifice was to point the people back to the covenant, a reenactment of Genesis. No penal element whatsoever. Indeed, the sacrificial victim had to be spotless, a picture of innocence, not imparted sin.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Sorry, that should have read Genesis 15
--------------------
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
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Kwesi: 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
No issue of propositions. It is always if you know the Lord. Knowing him is in the first instance, knowing what he did for you. What he did was deal with my sin issue. Like the trinity, the how of this is unfathomable and must be experienced by humble acceptance on the basis of revelation. It is not either intellectually apprehended nor hermeneutically discerned alone. You experience it and then you read it in scripture and then,at last, you realise it but the realisation is a recognition after the fact.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
My argument, Kwesi?
To quote a hymn Mudfrog might recognise ...
'I know no other argument, I have no other plea;
Jesus died for sinners, and Jesus died for me.'
Now, that doesn't explain the 'mechanics'.
I s'pose I'm trying to have my cake and eat it. I like aspects of both the Eastern and Western understandings of the atonement and I'm trying so far as I can to merge or combine the two. That might me fall over or do the splits, I don't know ... But both/and not either/or tends to me my mantra.
I don't think the case for PSA is as clear cut as some of its proponents make out but by the same token, I feel many of it's opponents overstate their case in the opposite direction.
--------------------
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 mr cheesy:
In fact if PSA is correct - in any sense - then it cannot possibly operate backwards in time.
I disagree; I think this is one of the flaws PSA does not have. As long as Jesus has taken the punishment, God can backdate the atonement as far as God chooses.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I disagree; I think this is one of the flaws PSA does not have. As long as Jesus has taken the punishment, God can backdate the atonement as far as God chooses.
Well he could, but that creates more problems than it solves, particularly if you add in the God-is-outside-of-time thing.
It also doesn't answer the "why bother with the temple sacrifice" thing if he knows there is a sacrifice which already covers the sin.
[ 24. January 2017, 19:59: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In fact if PSA is correct - in any sense - then it cannot possibly operate backwards in time.
I disagree; I think this is one of the flaws PSA does not have. As long as Jesus has taken the punishment, God can backdate the atonement as far as God chooses.
And BOOM goes the trinity. The second person is cast out of it.
PSA is an irredeemable load of nonsense, or Christianity is.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Gamaliel quote:
I don't think the case for PSA is as clear cut as some of its proponents make out but by the same token, I feel many of it's opponents overstate their case in the opposite direction.
What is the opposite direction you are on about?
Gamaliel quote:
To quote a hymn Mudfrog might recognise ...
'I know no other argument, I have no other plea;
Jesus died for sinners, and Jesus died for me.'
Now, that doesn't explain the 'mechanics'.
But PSA supporters claim to understand "the mechanics', which is why Kaplan, for example, is so dismissive of mysticism.
Quite frankly, I find the couplet completely unhelpful and embarrassingly sentimental doggerel.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Jamat quote:
What he did was deal with my sin issue. Like the trinity, the how of this is unfathomable and must be experienced by humble acceptance on the basis of revelation.
Jamat, if "the how of this is unfathomable," then how can you be so furled to one particular explanation? I find your position unfathomable.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, it is sentimental doggerel, Kwesi, and also very 'me-centred' and pietistic, but it did express something I was trying to say.
On the mysticism thing, I can see Kaplan's objections to that, but I don't see anyone here coming out with whishty-whishty mysticism.
Good question about the 'opposite' tendency. I s'pose I'm rather like Mudfrog and Kaplan insofar as I have been so steeped in the penal imagery that I feel nervous when it's not there ...
All this is work in progress for me ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Jamat quote:
What he did was deal with my sin issue. Like the trinity, the how of this is unfathomable and must be experienced by humble acceptance on the basis of revelation.
Jamat, if "the how of this is unfathomable," then how can you be so furled to one particular explanation? I find your position unfathomable.
Explaining the atonement is impossible. PSA does not explain how it works,it denotes what it is. The centre of the gospel is the exchange it makes possible. You can't experience the ride by watching it.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Explaining the atonement is impossible. PSA does not explain how it works,it denotes what it is.
I don't have a knife sharp enough to slide between those rocks. Can you explain how one can do the latter without doing the former?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think omniscience is classically in the Almighty's JD, yes.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's more the issue of aspect that's exercising me here. If you exist outside of time, then there's no future to foresee. All is present. There is no "what might happen". There is only what happens.
But does casting it as foresight or current-sight-applied-to-all-time change the argument?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
But PSA supporters claim to understand "the mechanics'
And some go even further to say that without a right understanding of the mechanics an individual is not saved.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
