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


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » Moral Influence atonement theology (Page 13)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  ...  24  25  26 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Moral Influence atonement theology
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
' ... Or even the Holy Spirit'?

What are you implying, Mudfrog? That the Holy Spirit is subordinate? That he isn't even part of the Godhead?


Indeed I wasn't!
To quote myself:
quote:
Otherwise, not understanding the full truth of the Trinity, the Incarnation and the finer points of Sanctification would bar any of us from having any relationship with the Godhead, with the Lord Jesus Christ or even the Holy Spirit.


1)Finer points of the Trinity - relationship with the Godhead.
2)Finer points of) the Incarnation - relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.
3)Finer points of sanctification - relationship with the Holy Spirit.

I was simply trying to say that a theological understanding of the finer points of those doctrinal subjects is not necessary for a relationship with the Father, Son or Holy Spirit.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8106 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yet for many evangelicals PSA is up there alongside the Trinity, alongside the Deity of Christ as some kind of non-negotiable.

Hence Kaplan's posts

I have neither said nor implied that it is a credal non-negotiable like the Trinity or the Deity of Christ.

And I went out of my way to explicitly state that no-one's salvation or Christian identity hinges on their acceptance or non-acceptance of PSA.

Posts: 3202 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In which case, I apologise, Kaplan. But that's how your posts read to me.

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15406 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The point is whether, if one doesn't carry a presumption of PSA to the table, one interprets the passage in that way.

In 6, the structure is the same: we should not continue in sin because of the atonement.

My point stands whether one accepts PSA or not. ie that the atonement, however it is interpreted, is the jumping-of point for a new life of not continuing in sin.

The atonement does not in itself consist of not continuing in sin, which is an impossibility, but instead marks the point of beginning a process of resisting sin
"because" (as you put it) of the atonement.

quote:
'With' and 'instead of' are in this context contradictory propositions.
No, they are complementary propositions.

It is because our "old (sinful) self" is joined "with" Christ, that he is able to suffer "instead of" us.

quote:
Debates over Divine sovereignity and human freedom are not about the logic of the distinction but about where the boundaries between the two lie.
No, the debate is about whether boundaries exist, or whether they are just a useful but limited semantic distinction.

Any belief in God's ultimate omnipotence and omniscience is logically incompatible with a distinction between primary and secondary causes, because the latter are necessarily subsumed by the former.

quote:
Likewise, debates about the Trinity are not about whether one 'God' can logically be three 'persons'. They are about what 'person' or 'God' mean in this context; about whether to approach the Trinity as one and then talk about the three or the other way around.
Only from inside the Christian bubble, and by arbitrarily assigning fixed meanings to ambiguous terms such as hypostasis, ousia, subsistentia, substantia and personae.

To a Jew, a Muslim or an atheist, the proposition that God is three and one at the same time makes no logical sense.

Orthodoxy accepts dcotrines such divine sovereigny/human freedom, and the Trinity, despite the fact that they can't be logically defended beyond a certain point, not because they can.

[ 26. January 2017, 22:43: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posts: 3202 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
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?
The atonement IS an exchange. If it is not then Jesus did NOT need to die. But as he did need to die, i.e. The cup could not pass then whatever was accomplished was by his death. However, the intricacies of how God enabled the new creation in each of his children, though a consequence, is as incomprehensible as the trinity. We can experience the rewards but never grasp the mechanics.
Posts: 2967 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jamat
quote:
We can experience the rewards but never grasp the mechanics.
Of course we can: the wrath of God was satisfied by the crucifixion, so he can be eternally nice to us because everyone's sins past, present and future have been dealt with punishment-wise, whether we like it or not.
Posts: 1452 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
How is the reconciliation, the at-onement (which IS the correct etymology) of humanity and God in the death AND resurrection of Jesus, a transaction beyond that it happened and as a result a minority of humans begin to darkly see that there is transcendent hope? Why is any magic cosmic forensic mechanism required beyond that?

[ 26. January 2017, 23:35: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16634 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
How is the reconciliation, the at-onement (which IS the correct etymology) of humanity and God in the death AND resurrection of Jesus, a transaction beyond that it happened and as a result a minority of humans begin to darkly see that there is transcendent hope? Why is any magic cosmic forensic mechanism required beyond that?

The wind blows where it will John 3. The magic is in the transforming power that occurs when it does.

[ 27. January 2017, 00:42: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posts: 2967 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The atonement IS an exchange. If it is not then Jesus did NOT need to die.

Yes, you keep saying this but never defending it. Even though you have been asked multiple times to do so. This would be a good time.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62954 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The atonement IS an exchange. If it is not then Jesus did NOT need to die.

Yes, you keep saying this but never defending it. Even though you have been asked multiple times to do so. This would be a good time.
Mousethief you know by now that nothing I say will have any impact on you. But JFTHOI 1 Pet 2:24

"and he himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness, for by his wound you were healed. For you we're continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls"

Does it not sound like a necessary transaction to you?

Posts: 2967 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The atonement IS an exchange. If it is not then Jesus did NOT need to die.

Yes, you keep saying this but never defending it. Even though you have been asked multiple times to do so. This would be a good time.
Mousethief you know by now that nothing I say will have any impact on you. But JFTHOI 1 Pet 2:24

"and he himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness, for by his wound you were healed. For you we're continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls"

Does it not sound like a necessary transaction to you?

Wait, you went from exchange to transaction. Not all transactions are exchanges, are they? What was exchanged here? I'll give you X if you give me Y. What are X and Y? Who are the people making the exchange?

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62954 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The atonement IS an exchange. If it is not then Jesus did NOT need to die.

Yes, you keep saying this but never defending it. Even though you have been asked multiple times to do so. This would be a good time.
Mousethief you know by now that nothing I say will have any impact on you. But JFTHOI 1 Pet 2:24

"and he himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness, for by his wound you were healed. For you we're continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls"

Does it not sound like a necessary transaction to you?

Wait, you went from exchange to transaction. Not all transactions are exchanges, are they? What was exchanged here? I'll give you X if you give me Y. What are X and Y? Who are the people making the exchange?
Once again, not sure I know your definitions. ISTM, a transaction is always an exchange but not always vice versa.
In the atonement X is Jesus' willingness to be a human sacrifice to represent us all to God in the adamic role. Y is God's desire to accept this as a basis for relationship with humanity, retrospectively and for all time.
However, I do not think this explains the mystery or the genius; it only denotes the fact.

Posts: 2967 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not sure that I'm objecting to PSA because it is transactional. In some ways of looking at things, almost everything is transactional. I do this, you do that in return.

The problem is that in PSA God is reduced to a transactional agent who is caught in a bind whereby he cannot do anything outside of that contract. He is forced to deal with sin, he must punish someone, there is nobody good enough in humanity so he (mystically) sends himself to be punished.

If one says that God has no obligation to "punish sin" then the whole idea that there is a transaction which must be paid falls away.

Again, to me this is a fault of all the theories of the atonement which say it is all about a transaction - paying the debt to God, paying the ransom to the devil. At least with the moral influence theory there it isn't claimed that there is a transaction but that the atonement is supposed to be a surpising act which wakes up sinful mankind from the stupour (I paraphrase).

My bottom line is that most healthy human relationships are not cold transactions where both parties are forced to act in certain ways by outside forces.

One might argue that a parent getting up the child to get ready for school is a transaction (and, my goodness, it sometimes feels like it). You get up so you'll go to school, so you'll learn things and make me proud, which will encourage you to learn more stuff, which will lead to you gaining enough skills to get a job which will eventually lead you you leaving home and standing on your own feet instead of draining my bank account.

But in a healthy relationship that's a poor explanation of what's going on, which cannot adequately by explained by simply talking about transactions.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 9834 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
How is the reconciliation, the at-onement (which IS the correct etymology) of humanity and God in the death AND resurrection of Jesus, a transaction beyond that it happened and as a result a minority of humans begin to darkly see that there is transcendent hope? Why is any magic cosmic forensic mechanism required beyond that?

The wind blows where it will John 3. The magic is in the transforming power that occurs when it does.
When is that? Or is it chaotic? God saves whom He will? Damns the vast majority by double predestination? From eternity? Never mind the facts and their transforming impact, there are yeah buts? Stuff we make up.

[ 27. January 2017, 09:03: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16634 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
When is that?.
When it happens you know. Your straw baby is getting a bit tatty BTW.
Posts: 2967 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Likewise, debates about the Trinity are not about whether one 'God' can logically be three 'persons'. They are about what 'person' or 'God' mean in this context; about whether to approach the Trinity as one and then talk about the three or the other way around.

Only from inside the Christian bubble, and by arbitrarily assigning fixed meanings to ambiguous terms such as hypostasis, ousia, subsistentia, substantia and personae.

To a Jew, a Muslim or an atheist, the proposition that God is three and one at the same time makes no logical sense.

'God is three and one at the same time' is not Christian orthodoxy. 'God is three persons and one God' is Christian orthodoxy, and that does make logical sense. If you sneer at the 'ambiguous terms such as hypostasis, ousia, subsistentia, substantia and personae' in which Christian orthodoxy is stated then it will appear to lack logic, but that is not the problem of Christian orthodoxy.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10313 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
When is that?.
When it happens you know. Your straw baby is getting a bit tatty BTW.
You know what? Is that the one you do throw away with the bathwater?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16634 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In the atonement X is Jesus' willingness to be a human sacrifice to represent us all to God in the adamic role. Y is God's desire to accept this as a basis for relationship with humanity, retrospectively and for all time.

But that doesn't describe an exchange at all. An exchange works like this:

Before the exchange:
Person A has X
Person B has Y

After the exchange:
Person A has Y
Person B has X

Thus for instance when I buy something at the store, I start with money and they with certain goods, then after the exchange they have my money and I have their goods. We have exchanged the money and the goods.

The X and Y you give, however, are not exchanged at all. God doesn't come into possession of Jesus' willingness having given up his own acceptance, or vice versa. That's not an exchange. Therefore by your definition it's not a transaction.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62954 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
He'll win you know. He always does. No matter what we say. I have waking nightmares that aren't this bad.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16634 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In the atonement X is Jesus' willingness to be a human sacrifice to represent us all to God in the adamic role. Y is God's desire to accept this as a basis for relationship with humanity, retrospectively and for all time.

But that doesn't describe an exchange at all. An exchange works like this:

Before the exchange:
Person A has X
Person B has Y

After the exchange:
Person A has Y
Person B has X

Thus for instance when I buy something at the store, I start with money and they with certain goods, then after the exchange they have my money and I have their goods. We have exchanged the money and the goods.

The X and Y you give, however, are not exchanged at all. God doesn't come into possession of Jesus' willingness having given up his own acceptance, or vice versa. That's not an exchange. Therefore by your definition it's not a transaction.

Well maybe you see exchange as barter or maybe I give you my banana if you give me your banana. But this is only true if the fact of an exchange depends on what is exchanged in the exchange. But if it does not, then my model works. Jesus was willing and able to give something to God the Father who was willing to accept it in order to effect an outcome which benefited humanity. In any case, in any transaction, something is exchanged for something else but to my mind in any exchange, this may not be the case in that no benefit necessarily accrues from the deal to both parties. ie, if I exchange hats with someone,we both begin and end with a hat so nothing much has changed unless they differ in quality or value. Transactions are exchanges with benefit to both parties I think. Exchanges are simply the mechanisms of transactions but I do not think either depends at all on the content of the deal.
Posts: 2967 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well maybe you see exchange as barter or maybe I give you my banana if you give me your banana. But this is only true if the fact of an exchange depends on what is exchanged in the exchange.

No, you miss the point. It's only an exchange if an exchange is made. If something passes from person A to person B, and if something else passes from person B to person A. That's what exchange MEANS. Bartering is one kind of exchange, it is true. Buying things with money is another kind of exchange. People have said that marriage is an exchange in which women exchange sex for financial security. But the bottom line is: You have X and give it to me, and I have Y and give it to you.

The whole thing about whether they're of equal value is bizarre and completely irrelevant.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62954 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
..the bottom line is: You have X and give it to me, and I have Y and give it to you.
OK then, Jesus had the ability and the willingness to offer himself as a sinless sacrifice to God. God the Father had the authority to accept this on behalf of the Godhead. What Jesus gave was his sacrificial death. What God the Father gave was his seal of acceptance. At this point there was probably a divine handshake. The benefit of the exchange is that the human race can be cleansed of sin. Now just how that is possible, remains beyond human comprehension.
Posts: 2967 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I read William Barclay's Daily Study Bible's each day. I'm working my way through Hebrews at the moment and, coincidentally, a couple of days ago I read his comment on the actions of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement, specifically on the scapegoat.
quote:
Then came the most vivid ceremony. The scapegoat was brought forward. The High Priest laid his hands on it and confessed his own sin and the sin of the people; and the goat was led forth into the desert, "into a land not inhabited," laden with the sins of the people and there it was killed.
I just leave that there - he was a better scholar then me, so I guess he got his information from somewhere authoritative.

And secondly, just this morning, read this - pertaining to Hebrews 9:

quote:
Forgiveness is a costly thing. Human forgiveness is costly. A son or a daughter may go wrong and a father or a mother may forgive; but that forgiveness brings tears, whiteness to the hair, lines to the face, a cutting anguish and then a long dull ache to the heart. It does not cost nothing. Divine forgiveness is costly. God is love but he is also holiness. He least of all can break the great moral laws on which the universe is built. Sin must have its punishment or the very structure of life disintegrates. And God alone can pay the terrible price that is necessary before men can be forgiven. Forgiveness is never a case of saying: "It's all right; it doesn't matter." It is the most costly thing in the world. Without the shedding of heart's blood there can be no forgiveness of sins. Nothing brings a man to his senses with such arresting violence as to see the effect of his sin on someone who loves him in this world or on the God who loves him for ever, and to say to himself: "It cost that to forgive my sin." Where there is forgiveness someone must be crucified.

William Barclay

He's not a modern, American, Southern Baptist, Bible-Belt, Chick-tract-reading evangelical.
This is middle of the road - in some ways often quite liberal - Church of Scotland minister and also a Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at the University of Glasgow.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8106 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What about all the other races from eternity?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16634 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
He's not a modern, American, Southern Baptist, Bible-Belt, Chick-tract-reading evangelical.
This is middle of the road - in some ways often quite liberal - Church of Scotland minister and also a Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at the University of Glasgow.

I'm not sure why you are quoting Barclay as if this adds something to this conversation. Given what I know of you and of William Barclay (particularly his famous belief in universal salvation), I'm not entirely clear how your views match anyway.

Some bloke said something which is vaguely in agreement with PSA. Wow.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 9834 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Mudfrog, re, the scapegoat.

I've no idea where Barclay gets the idea that the scapegoat is killed. Leviticus 16 specifically states that it is escorted into "a remote place" and released. Sounds a bit as if he is fitting the data to his preconceptions.

--------------------
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
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
He's not a modern, American, Southern Baptist, Bible-Belt, Chick-tract-reading evangelical.
This is middle of the road - in some ways often quite liberal - Church of Scotland minister and also a Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at the University of Glasgow.

I'm not sure why you are quoting Barclay as if this adds something to this conversation. Given what I know of you and of William Barclay (particularly his famous belief in universal salvation), I'm not entirely clear how your views match anyway.

Some bloke said something which is vaguely in agreement with PSA. Wow.

The point I was making is contained in what I wrote about Barclay. It was a simple comment about PSA not being the domain of fundamentalist American evangelicals.

Also, I don't see how you can get only 'vaguely in agreement with PSA' out of what Barclay said.

Try not to be too grudging.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8106 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
@Mudfrog, re, the scapegoat.

I've no idea where Barclay gets the idea that the scapegoat is killed. Leviticus 16 specifically states that it is escorted into "a remote place" and released. Sounds a bit as if he is fitting the data to his preconceptions.

The Jews evidently believe the scapegoat was sacrificed, as in THIS SITE which contains, in the summary:
quote:
"The loss of the Temple and the Holy of Holies, the fact that we can no longer sacrifice the "scapegoat" does not mean that we have entirely lost Yom Kippur."

A Quote from The Jerusalem Targum (4th to 8th Century CE)
quote:

And Aharon shall put upon the goats equal lots; one lot for the Name of the Lord, and one lot for Azazel: and he shall throw them into the vase, and draw them out, and put them upon the goats. And Aharon shall bring the goat upon which came up the lot for the Name of the Lord, and make him a sin offering. And the goat on which came up the lot for Azazel he shall make to stand alive before the Lord, to expiate for the sins of the people of the house of Israel, by sending him to die in a place rough and hard in the rocky desert which is Beth-hadurey.48

And finally, this interesting piece from Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, former Chief Rabbi, talking about
The Scapegoat, Atonement and Purification, where he says:
quote:
The (goat) on which the lot “To the L‑rd” fell was offered as a sacrifice. Over the other the High Priest confessed the sins of the nation and it was then taken away into the desert hills outside Jerusalem where it plunged to its death.
and then:
quote:
The two goats—the two systems, the amygdala and prefrontal cortex—are both us. One we offer to God. But the other we disown. We let it go into the wilderness where it belongs and where it will meet a violent death.
Seeing that we are discussing Jewish concepts, it might be best to trust the Jewish interpretation of the practice.

I think I stand on that historic interpretation that says quite clearly that the goat on which the sins of the people were transferred, was killed - and the thought strikes me that it happened 'outside the city wall' as it were.

[ 28. January 2017, 13:12: 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: 8106 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
@Mudfrog, re, the scapegoat.

I've no idea where Barclay gets the idea that the scapegoat is killed. Leviticus 16 specifically states that it is escorted into "a remote place" and released. Sounds a bit as if he is fitting the data to his preconceptions.

The Jews evidently believe the scapegoat was sacrificed, as in THIS SITE which contains, in the summary:
quote:
"The loss of the Temple and the Holy of Holies, the fact that we can no longer sacrifice the "scapegoat" does not mean that we have entirely lost Yom Kippur."

A Quote from The Jerusalem Targum (4th to 8th Century CE)
quote:

And Aharon shall put upon the goats equal lots; one lot for the Name of the Lord, and one lot for Azazel: and he shall throw them into the vase, and draw them out, and put them upon the goats. And Aharon shall bring the goat upon which came up the lot for the Name of the Lord, and make him a sin offering. And the goat on which came up the lot for Azazel he shall make to stand alive before the Lord, to expiate for the sins of the people of the house of Israel, by sending him to die in a place rough and hard in the rocky desert which is Beth-hadurey.48

And finally, this interesting piece from Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, former Chief Rabbi, talking about
The Scapegoat, Atonement and Purification, where he says:
quote:
The (goat) on which the lot “To the L‑rd” fell was offered as a sacrifice. Over the other the High Priest confessed the sins of the nation and it was then taken away into the desert hills outside Jerusalem where it plunged to its death.
and then:
quote:
The two goats—the two systems, the amygdala and prefrontal cortex—are both us. One we offer to God. But the other we disown. We let it go into the wilderness where it belongs and where it will meet a violent death.
Seeing that we are discussing Jewish concepts, it might be best to trust the Jewish interpretation of the practice.

I think I stand on that historic interpretation that says quite clearly that the goat on which the sins of the people were transferred, was killed - and the thought strikes me that it happened 'outside the city wall' as it were.

As, believe it or not, I am an evangelical, I tend to invest the words of scripture with greater authority than other "wise writings", and I have read you expressing similar views at other times. I see no scriptural backing for the view that the scapegoat was put to death, by being pushed from height (did the writer have any experience of herding goats?) or any other method. The scripture is quite specific, a detailed description of the Day of Atonement rituals, and it is clear that the instruction was that the scapegoat was to be escorted into the wilderness and released.

--------------------
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
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Only, it's a little more complicated than that, don't you think?

Mr Tyndale may have plucked his entirely made-up word 'scapegoat' from his linguistically-imaginative mind, but the word that it now obscures is the word Azazel.

The articles I have included refer to the time before Mr Tyndale's late medieval context to the proper use - evidently unknown to him - of the word Azazel which takes us from just releasing the goat into the wilderness and brings us closer to what actually was meant to happen to the unfortunate goat.

Looking at the parallels and pre-figuring before the scapegoat ritual was instituted certainly suggests a little bit more than a bloke taking a goat and shooing it down the path a short way in the direction of the nearest sand dune.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8106 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Only, it's a little more complicated than that, don't you think?

Mr Tyndale may have plucked his entirely made-up word 'scapegoat' from his linguistically-imaginative mind, but the word that it now obscures is the word Azazel.

The articles I have included refer to the time before Mr Tyndale's late medieval context to the proper use - evidently unknown to him - of the word Azazel which takes us from just releasing the goat into the wilderness and brings us closer to what actually was meant to happen to the unfortunate goat.

Looking at the parallels and pre-figuring before the scapegoat ritual was instituted certainly suggests a little bit more than a bloke taking a goat and shooing it down the path a short way in the direction of the nearest sand dune.

No-one is suggesting that the goat was shooed off. Clearly, the intent was to escort the animal some considerable distance into the wilderness- enough to be a significant journey for its human escort, such that there was no chance of it returning to the community.

Azazel may refer to a Goat-demon, said to inhabit the wilderness, and so is, I assume, a pun, such as is common in the Old Testament, but the meaning is clearly "sent far away" - not slain or sacrificed. The bit of reading that I have done around this suggests that the later tradition of pushing the goat off a cliff came about because one year, the scapegoat returned to the camp and caused significant superstitious consternation, but, as one might say, it was not so in the beginning. There remains the fact that we are discussing around the biblical meaning, and the data for our discussion is the biblical text as is. What later communities may have done in practice does not really enter in to it. If one was to assume, as you seem to do, that one of the primary intentions of the authors of the text is that the goat should be killed, I think that it is necessary to come up with some pretty convincing argument as to why, in the midst of this very specific and detailed set of ritual instructions, there is no mention of it at all.

--------------------
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
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
..the bottom line is: You have X and give it to me, and I have Y and give it to you.
OK then, Jesus had the ability and the willingness to offer himself as a sinless sacrifice to God. God the Father had the authority to accept this on behalf of the Godhead. What Jesus gave was his sacrificial death. What God the Father gave was his seal of acceptance. At this point there was probably a divine handshake. The benefit of the exchange is that the human race can be cleansed of sin. Now just how that is possible, remains beyond human comprehension.
Sorry Jamat, you probably missed my unaddressed question in response, about the infinite other races from eternity.

Your story of a story works for you. No illiberal atonement story, no matter how textual, can work for anyone with a liberal education. Only the deed can speak. The son of God's submission to us at our helpless worst and His getting up from that.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16634 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Only the deed can speak. The son of God's submission to us at our helpless worst and His getting up from that.
This.

--------------------
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
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Only the deed can speak. The son of God's submission to us at our helpless worst and His getting up from that.
This.
All theories fall away.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62954 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Is not the most salient point about all these sacrifices, (which, incidentally, Isaiah indicates God was fed up of), is that Human Sacrifice was not part of the script.
Posts: 1452 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
..the bottom line is: You have X and give it to me, and I have Y and give it to you.
OK then, Jesus had the ability and the willingness to offer himself as a sinless sacrifice to God. God the Father had the authority to accept this on behalf of the Godhead. What Jesus gave was his sacrificial death. What God the Father gave was his seal of acceptance. At this point there was probably a divine handshake. The benefit of the exchange is that the human race can be cleansed of sin. Now just how that is possible, remains beyond human comprehension.
So you have Jesus having something God does not, and God having something Jesus does not. With one stroke you have bifurcated the Trinity and created the schizophrenic god that PSA proponents swear up and down they don't believe in. You really can't have it both ways. Either you have an exchange between persons of the Trinity, in which case you have the angry Father and the appeasing Son, or there is no exchange. There really is no middle ground. PSA requires a schizophrenic God.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62954 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Heretic! That's modalism!!

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16634 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
PSA requires a schizophrenic God
Obviously, I'm not following your thinking here and maybe you could clarify why the concept I proposed bifurcated the Godhead or trinity. IMV, you are attempting what I try to avoid and what no theologian can really do, explain how the trinity works internally. ISTM the atonement is easy to accept but impossible to explain but it's central thesis is 2 Peter2:24. In the end, you take the money and run, ergo, 'Jesus died for my sins..Hallelujah!'
Posts: 2967 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Your story of a story works for you. No illiberal atonement story, no matter how textual, can work for anyone with a liberal education. Only the deed can speak.
Sorry mate I cannot grasp this. Of course my story works. The gospel always has. Of course a liberal story doesn't work it is not the gospel but a humanistic ie man centred meme. The dead indeed speak. The scriptures testify to this in Heb 11, the heroes mentioned there do so by their faith which was never in a human narrative but a divine revelation.
Posts: 2967 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Heretic! That's modalism!!

On the contrary, it's the exact opposite of modalism. It's polytheism.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62954 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
created the schizophrenic god

PSA requires a schizophrenic God.

Can't believe that there are still people exploiting misrepresentations of schizophrenia.
Posts: 3202 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
'God is three persons and one God' is Christian orthodoxy, and that does make logical sense.

No it doesn't.

God is personal, not impersonal, substance but at the same time that personhood consists of three persons, each of whom is one hundred per cent God.

As God is, for Christians, Trinitarian, this means that each person of the Trinity must be a Trinity in order to be God, producing a sort of infinite regress.

All diagrams. analogies and definitions of the Trinity break down at some point, because it cannot be contained within logical categories.

The orthodox, credal conception of the Trinity is theologically, but not logically,
adequate.

It is strictly speaking illogical - the Muslim depiction of it as polytheism is perfectly understandable, as is the understanding of the three persons by atheists as three alters of someone with DID- but to the Christian it transcends logic.

quote:
If you sneer at the 'ambiguous terms such as hypostasis, ousia, subsistentia, substantia and personae' in which Christian orthodoxy is stated
Recognising the limitations of the language used to describe the real but indescribable is not the same as sneering.

For example, to us, the distinction between hypostasis and ousia seems obvious, but it was certainly not self-evident to many well-meaning and orthodox fourth century Christians, to whom they seemed synonyms.

Posts: 3202 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Heretic! That's modalism!!

On the contrary, it's the exact opposite of modalism. It's polytheism.
It's both. The PSA DID God is modal and the bad Dad good Lad people God is polytheistic.

And KC, you have my sympathy being dragged down by the texts, including on the economic Trinity which we made up, but your illogic on the infinite regress of the Trinity strains it.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16634 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
created the schizophrenic god

PSA requires a schizophrenic God.

Can't believe that there are still people exploiting misrepresentations of schizophrenia.
Mea maxima culpa. I am so evil. I am so bad.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62954 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I say this very carefully, but honesty complels me to acknowledge that many contemporary evangelicals come across as sub-Trinitarian to me these days. Evangelical prayers are highly Christocentric and I meet many charismatics who seem to reduce God the Holy Spirit to some kind of impersonal 'faith-force' akin to electricity.

Of course, lots of non-evangelical are pretty hazy on some of these things too, but spend any length of time around evangelical churches these days and I think we'd all find the level of catechesis to be pretty poor on the whole. But these things are relative and vary from place to place.

To be frank, though, I'm not in the least surprised to see evangelicals branded with accusations of Modalism, Nestorianism and all sorts of puzzlement nor with accusations of bifurcating the Trinity or promoting a kind of schizophrenic Deity.

Why not?

Because, quite frankly, they bring it on themselves with the way they speak and act.

Now, I'm not accusing them of Modalism, Polytheism or any of these things but if they are accused of such things then they've only got themselves to blame because of their rather lax terminology and modes of presentation.

It ain't just RCs and Orthodox who level such charges. I've known classic Reformed people say the same.

With reason.

Because evangelicals are all over the darn place and if they retain any semblance of small o orthodoxy at all it's because they haven't yet completely lost their moorings but are tethered to some extent yet to the 'grand tradition.'

I don't think all is lost, though. There are signs of hope but there's no room for complacency. I don't want to exaggerate the dangers but I do feel that large sections of evangelicalism are drifting away into a kind of hyper-subjective la-la land.

Evangelicals are rallying around PSA as some kind of banner when they are overlooking the quicksands at their feet. They are so busy pointing the finger at liberals and catholics to some extent that they're overlooking the cracks and fissures within their own schema.

Mark my words.

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15406 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We need another thread although they all come down to the same thing:

How can Christian orthodoxy be anything to do with the ontology of God or the meaning of Christ's sacrifice derived from the thoughts of ancient men?

Needs a punchier OP.

[ 29. January 2017, 12:30: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16634 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
'God is three persons and one God' is Christian orthodoxy, and that does make logical sense.

No it doesn't.

God is personal, not impersonal, substance but at the same time that personhood consists of three persons, each of whom is one hundred per cent God.

As God is, for Christians, Trinitarian, this means that each person of the Trinity must be a Trinity in order to be God, producing a sort of infinite regress.

Yes, well, I think that shows that if you try to state something in such a way that it doesn't make sense you will succeed. And that you will end up talking nonsense if you believe it is illogical and therefore just don't care (a chicken and egg thing going there).

I'd say your paragraph is just sloppily worded until we get to the final statement that each of the persons is God, which is true but ambiguous. Here 'God' might be better translated as 'divine'.
'Hundred per cent' is out of place until we've specified what is being denied in denying each person is 'a third of God'. (What we're denying is that God is made up of three persons each with a prior ontological existence.)

The point is to keep an eye on what doctrinal work or misunderstanding is being cleared up by any given utterance, and to therefore avoid shifting the meanings of one's terms.

quote:
It is strictly speaking illogical - the Muslim depiction of it as polytheism is perfectly understandable, as is the understanding of the three persons by atheists as three alters of someone with DID- but to the Christian it transcends logic.
The atheist understanding you describe would only be understandable if it were assumed that God is three personalities in one body, which is not the case. (Most analogies for the Trinity fall down precisely because they envisage God as a material object with extension.) There are other problems there too (it fails to distinguish between 'personality' and 'person').
If the Muslim wants to define polytheism in such a way that three persons counts as polytheism one can't stop him or her. One can perhaps ask whether that definition of 'polytheism' is actually helpful.

quote:
Recognising the limitations of the language used to describe the real but indescribable is not the same as sneering.

For example, to us, the distinction between hypostasis and ousia seems obvious, but it was certainly not self-evident to many well-meaning and orthodox fourth century Christians, to whom they seemed synonyms.

The utility of logic is that it is purely formal. It does not matter whether we understand the terms in use; logic holds as long as we believe that the terms in question are such that the sentences have the appropriate logical form. In particular, we don't need to understand precisely what is being asserted in saying that there is three hypostases and one ousia to know that what is being asserted is a distinction and therefore not a logical contradiction.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10313 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
by Kwesi;
quote:
Is not the most salient point about all these sacrifices, (which, incidentally, Isaiah indicates God was fed up of), is that Human Sacrifice was not part of the script.
In some ways the most salient point of the sacrifices, and a point made through the Isaiah passage referred to here, is that the sacrifices were provided by God anyway and were therefore from square one a symbol of God's forgivingness.

Yes the sacrifices were meaningful - but that meaning did not include any idea of God being like a finite pagan god who actually needed and depended on our sacrifices, or the kind of - again finite - pagan god who could be bribed by our sacrifices to do what we want.

"The cattle on a thousand hills are mine, don't kid yourselves that the sacrifice of the cattle to me can even begin to buy my favour" is the message.

But at the same time, don't go kidding yourselves that forgiveness is without cost; your sins create a real problem and somebody has to foot the bill. Albeit inadequately, the sacrifice requirement faces you with the fact of that cost and simultaneously calls upon you to face responsibility (by giving something up that you could have benefited from by using it yourself).

And if you're paying attention, you're also meant to see that in dealing with the God of the whole universe, the sacrifice is not your fabulous gift to me, but actually my gift to you to help us be reconciled to one another. I, God, will accept a weak understanding in which you've at least grasped the reality of your need; but I won't accept you giving yourself airs that you're doing me some great favour and that 'your' sacrifices somehow put me in your debt....

And yes, human sacrifice is not part of the script - that human already owes Me his own life for his own sins; so you can't use his life to pay for your sins (a point which does not apply to Jesus!).

And yes also, as the writer to the Hebrews points out, ultimately these sacrifices of animals are inadequate in all kinds of ways; but they will teach you important lessons (and not just about atoning for sins) so that you'll 'get it' when I come among you as the man Jesus and my revelation of atonement and all manner of other things culminates in the life, death, resurrection and eternal kingdom of Christ.

Posts: 2097 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:


But at the same time, don't go kidding yourselves that forgiveness is without cost; your sins create a real problem and somebody has to foot the bill.

This is the part I have an issue with. I can see no reason to believe that.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 9834 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And if you're paying attention, you're also meant to see that in dealing with the God of the whole universe, the sacrifice is not your fabulous gift to me, but actually my gift to you to help us be reconciled to one another. I, God, will accept a weak understanding in which you've at least grasped the reality of your need; but I won't accept you giving yourself airs that you're doing me some great favour and that 'your' sacrifices somehow put me in your debt....

Which is why I require the exact same thing the pagan gods do, the understanding of which is exactly what I don't want you to come away with. See how easy I have made it for you to understand what differentiates me from them.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62954 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  ...  24  25  26 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools