|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Moral Influence atonement theology
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Mousethief;
quote:
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.
I'll sit out of this for a bit while you explain to God what he should have done instead, since you clearly know so much better than Him....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
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.
The forgiver foots the bill.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The forgiver foots the bill.
Unless one is postulating a higher authority than the forgiver (God) I can see no reason why there is a bill which must be paid.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The victim let's it go. Seeks no redress. No restitution. The Christian knows that all things, that's ALL things will be restituted. Reset.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | 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
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Mousethief;
quote:
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.
I'll sit out of this for a bit while you explain to God what he should have done instead, since you clearly know so much better than Him....
How dare I challenge your interpretation of the Bible? Yes, I suppose that's pretty outrageous of me to do.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Martrin60 quote:
The victim let's it go. Seeks no redress. No restitution. The Christian knows that all things, that's ALL things will be restituted. Reset.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif) That's the whole point isn't it, Martin?
PSA doesn't get this because it doesn't really make a distinction between sin and the sinner. Rather it's based on the sinner being condemned to hell for sinning.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Mousethief;
quote:
How dare I challenge your interpretation of the Bible? Yes, I suppose that's pretty outrageous of me to do.
It's hardly 'just my interpretation of the Bible' that God set up, in the OT, a system of sacrifices including sacrifices to atone for sin. Those sacrifices are superficially like the sacrifices of paganism - as your response to me suggests.
I see the difference being in how those sacrifices are interpreted in the very different context of belief in an infinite Creator God rather than the limited gods of paganism, and in the way God uses those sacrifices as a model of Jesus' atoning self-sacrifice. God takes a known practice and re-directs it to teach a different lesson.
It's not all that clear how you interpret the situation - please explain.... What was the purpose of the OT sacrifices according to Orthodoxy or your personal version thereof??
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
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.
So if somebody tomorrow beats you nearly to death, causing you all kinds of suffering and expense, and causing further problems to an array of medical helpers, police, etc; and if he also robs you of everything portable you own - there is no 'bill' to be 'footed'?
The assaulter/thief has done you no harm for which he should compensate you? There is no question of him returning the stolen goods, and again compensating for any that are for various reasons irrecoverable? He has not the slightest responsibility to do that? - or to make recompense for all the surrounding costs and damage resulting from his conduct? And if you forgive him, that costs you nothing? (As you lose everything and receive not the slightest compensation for it?)
The sinner has similar responsibilities for the consequences of his acts, which are not only against fellow humans but also against God's creation, a creation which is a reality, not some mere illusion or dream, and indeed damage to himself as belonging to God. Justly the sinner should pay; and to be forgiven must surely acknowledge the debt and repent of the conduct creating the debt, and be willingly changed from the person who created this problem. And how will he see that need if - according to you - there is no such debt anyway?
It's not about an authority "higher than God" - it is about a real costly problem and whether the burden falls on the guilty party who deserves it, or is voluntarily assumed by a forgiving God.
There is a reason why Jesus uses imagery of debt in portraying the business of atonement....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
So if somebody tomorrow beats you nearly to death, causing you all kinds of suffering and expense, and causing further problems to an array of medical helpers, police, etc; and if he also robs you of everything portable you own - there is no 'bill' to be 'footed'?
I have no obligation to insist on a bill. I can choose to forgive without obligation.
And I'm not God. God can do anything, including forgiving without getting anything in return.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
So if somebody tomorrow beats you nearly to death, causing you all kinds of suffering and expense, and causing further problems to an array of medical helpers, police, etc; and if he also robs you of everything portable you own - there is no 'bill' to be 'footed'?
I have no obligation to insist on a bill. I can choose to forgive without obligation.
And I'm not God. God can do anything, including forgiving without getting anything in return.
Of course you can choose to forgive without obligation. But you can't, as a mere human, forgive on behalf of the medics, law enforcement and other parties injured and facing costs by the actions of the thief; nor morally can you force or demand that they forgive.
You might reasonably forgive on their behalf IF you paid them what the thief owes them as a consequence of his actions - and that would mean very much there's a bill you'd find yourself footing!
And yes, God can "forgive without getting anything in return" - but ipso facto that means he is 'footing the bill/bearing the consequences' of the wrongful deed of the sinner. Any other result is the kind of logically impossible that even God can't do.
And then there's a further issue of achieving reconciliation. What use is it ultimately to forgive without reconciliation, without change of heart by the sinner?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Of course you can choose to forgive without obligation. But you can't, as a mere human, forgive on behalf of the medics, law enforcement and other parties injured and facing costs by the actions of the thief; nor morally can you force or demand that they forgive.
I fail to see how this applies to God.
quote:
You might reasonably forgive on their behalf IF you paid them what the thief owes them as a consequence of his actions - and that would mean very much there's a bill you'd find yourself footing!
I fail to see what this has to do with the atonement. You are simply stating that the atonement is like something I do not accept it is like.
quote:
And yes, God can "forgive without getting anything in return" - but ipso facto that means he is 'footing the bill/bearing the consequences' of the wrongful deed of the sinner.
Nope, utter drivel.
quote:
Any other result is the kind of logically impossible that even God can't do.
Your sin has offended God, and it is a logical impossibility that he can choose to forget it and disregard it? No idea what you are on about.
quote:
And then there's a further issue of achieving reconciliation. What use is it ultimately to forgive without reconciliation, without change of heart by the sinner?
Yes, nobody said reconciliation wasn't important. The point I'm disagreeing with is the transactional nature of the forgiveness.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
It's hardly 'just my interpretation of the Bible'
but
quote:
I see the difference being
One of these things doesn't belong.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
It's hardly 'just my interpretation of the Bible'
but
quote:
I see the difference being
One of these things doesn't belong.
Funny!!
Try again - It's hardly 'just my interpretation of the Bible' that God spends a lot of the OT specifying sacrificial rituals which as you point out are superficially similar to pagan rituals of divine appeasement. That is simply actually there in the Bible.
I'm now trying to find out how you interpret that so as to justify your comment. Yes, not just on my own but following further exposition/explanation of the point in the Scriptures - eg in the Epistle to the Hebrews - I interpret those in a particular way. How do you interpret the OT sacrifices yourself? Have you got a coherent view? Please explain....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by mr cheesy;
quote:
Yes, nobody said reconciliation wasn't important. The point I'm disagreeing with is the transactional nature of the forgiveness.
So given all the very transactional imagery used by Jesus, it's not me you're disagreeing with but Jesus who clearly thought ideas of debt etc., to be highly relevant....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Oh no, you can't wriggle out of this so easily. How did God -- before the removal to Babylon -- make it crystal clear that the Aaronic sacrifice system was so completely and utterly different from the identical-looking pagan sacrificial systems?
Yes I know that the post-exilic prophets came down on the sacrificial system like a ton of bricks and gave us insights like "I hate your sabbaths and new moons and other sacrifices" and "What does the Lord require of you but to justice and so on." But one could very easily argue they were redefining the system. Where is the pre-exilic statement that God doesn't really need all these sacrifices after all? I admit I haven't memorized the entire Torah, so I may be missing something.
But it strikes me that if I were, you could have trotted it out instead of saying it was your interpretation that etc.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Oh no, you can't wriggle out of this so easily. How did God -- before the removal to Babylon -- make it crystal clear that the Aaronic sacrifice system was so completely and utterly different from the identical-looking pagan sacrificial systems?
Yes I know that the post-exilic prophets came down on the sacrificial system like a ton of bricks and gave us insights like "I hate your sabbaths and new moons and other sacrifices" and "What does the Lord require of you but to justice and so on." But one could very easily argue they were redefining the system. Where is the pre-exilic statement that God doesn't really need all these sacrifices after all? I admit I haven't memorized the entire Torah, so I may be missing something.
But it strikes me that if I were, you could have trotted it out instead of saying it was your interpretation that etc.
It's part of my interpretation - and I think of the Biblical representation as well - that the redefining takes place over time, with one principle being established solidly before another is introduced to take the matter forward. It's not a quick process because humans are pretty stroppy and slow to learn and also because the change over generations means it takes time for lessons to get firmly established.
But part of the point is just that thinking about it should get people to see the difference between the situation of sacrifices to appease limited gods and sacrifices to a God who actually created it all in the first place and who can't be bought or bribed by what belongs to him anyway.
And BTW, in making rightly the point about 'justice rather than sacrifice' don't forget the complementary truth that "the cattle on a thousand hills are mine" and the redefining that necessitates. Also don't forget that it was God through Moses who gave the OT sacrificial system and he surely had a reason!
And if you want a pre-exilic and indeed way pre-Aaronic example of the principle of sacrifices provided by God for man rather than by humans for God, look to the example of Abraham and the way God provided a sacrifice in place of Isaac.... That example alone should have made sacrifices to Yahweh look very different to pagan sacrifice.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
But part of the point is just that thinking about it should get people to see the difference
Just thinking about anything does not take all people to the same conclusion. Which is exactly my point here. You are mistaking what you get when you (or you and others like you) just think about it for the objective, clear, unambiguous meaning of the text. But other people just think about it and come away with different views.
This is why people like me say there is no objective, clear, unambiguous meaning of the text, and every single way of taking it is the result of interpretation from particular points of view.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Where is the pre-exilic statement that God doesn't really need all these sacrifices after all? I admit I haven't memorized the entire Torah, so I may be missing something.
In Samuel where David returns the ark of the covenant, puts it in a tent and appoints praise singers to worship. He gets to sit in front of it and worship and it is he who says bulls and goats you have not desired etc. He is the game changer oft quoted in the New Testament. He actually gets away with a new kind of sacrifice, praise. He gets away with being close to the ark without being the high priest.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
This is why people like me say there is no objective, clear, unambiguous meaning of the text, and every single way of taking it is the result of interpretation from particular points of view.
And you are totally wrong because by saying that you trash it as revelation and elevate human intelligence as interpreter above it. Consequently, you cannot hear Gods voice in it. Your arrogant stance puts you in the category of scoffer, in the category of the one of whom Scripture says, professing to be wise they became fools. You are also wrong because you deny the power of the Holy Spirit to clarify the text and elevate human intellect which though necessary has never and will never be adequate on its own.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
This is why people like me say there is no objective, clear, unambiguous meaning of the text, and every single way of taking it is the result of interpretation from particular points of view.
And you are totally wrong because by saying that you trash it as revelation and elevate human intelligence as interpreter above it. Consequently, you cannot hear Gods voice in it. Your arrogant stance puts you in the category of scoffer, in the category of the one of whom Scripture says, professing to be wise they became fools. You are also wrong because you deny the power of the Holy Spirit to clarify the text and elevate human intellect which though necessary has never and will never be adequate on its own.
Wow you're good. And to think I paid a psychologist to do this.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
This is why people like me say there is no objective, clear, unambiguous meaning of the text, and every single way of taking it is the result of interpretation from particular points of view.
And you are totally wrong because by saying that you trash it as revelation and elevate human intelligence as interpreter above it.
You got this 100% ass-backwards. It is you who are saying that you can interpret it without the help of the Church. I am saying we cannot be trusted as individuals to interpret it and need the Holy Spirit as it acts through the Church. Saying "this is what the text obviously says" is attempting to go on man's intellect alone.
quote:
Consequently, you cannot hear Gods voice in it. Your arrogant stance puts you in the category of scoffer,
I'll take spiritual advice from my priest, and not from some who-the-fuck-are-you on the Web, thank you very much. Back off.
quote:
You are also wrong because you deny the power of the Holy Spirit to clarify the text and elevate human intellect which though necessary has never and will never be adequate on its own.
You don't know anything about what I believe so you should probably not presume to tell me.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
This is why people like me say there is no objective, clear, unambiguous meaning of the text, and every single way of taking it is the result of interpretation from particular points of view.
And you are totally wrong because by saying that you trash it as revelation and elevate human intelligence as interpreter above it. Consequently, you cannot hear Gods voice in it. Your arrogant stance puts you in the category of scoffer, in the category of the one of whom Scripture says, professing to be wise they became fools. You are also wrong because you deny the power of the Holy Spirit to clarify the text and elevate human intellect which though necessary has never and will never be adequate on its own.
What's revelation? Apart from of God in Christ?
Personally I'm delighted that the Holy Spirit clarifies the text with postmodern deconstruction.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
Yes, nobody said reconciliation wasn't important. The point I'm disagreeing with is the transactional nature of the forgiveness.
So given all the very transactional imagery used by Jesus, it's not me you're disagreeing with but Jesus who clearly thought ideas of debt etc., to be highly relevant....
Highly CULTURALLY relevant. They have absolutely NOTHING to do with absolute relevance.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | 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
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
Yes, nobody said reconciliation wasn't important. The point I'm disagreeing with is the transactional nature of the forgiveness.
So given all the very transactional imagery used by Jesus, it's not me you're disagreeing with but Jesus who clearly thought ideas of debt etc., to be highly relevant....
Highly CULTURALLY relevant. They have absolutely NOTHING to do with absolute relevance.
What the hell is "absolute relevance"?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
each person of the Trinity must be a Trinity in order to be God, producing a sort of infinite regress.
What? 3 holy Spirits? 3 sons? 3 fathers?
Yep, and so on indefinitely....
It's an argumentum ad absurdum put up by anti-Trinitarians, and a reminder to we Trinitarians that Trinitarianism cannot be contained within logical categories.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
Yes, nobody said reconciliation wasn't important. The point I'm disagreeing with is the transactional nature of the forgiveness.
So given all the very transactional imagery used by Jesus, it's not me you're disagreeing with but Jesus who clearly thought ideas of debt etc., to be highly relevant....
Highly CULTURALLY relevant. They have absolutely NOTHING to do with absolute relevance.
What the hell is "absolute relevance"?
Relevance in the ultimate? The absolute? In 'the court of heaven'? Anything Jesus said using human constructs being relative.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
each person of the Trinity must be a Trinity in order to be God, producing a sort of infinite regress.
What? 3 holy Spirits? 3 sons? 3 fathers?
Yep, and so on indefinitely....
It's an argumentum ad absurdum put up by anti-Trinitarians, and a reminder to we Trinitarians that Trinitarianism cannot be contained within logical categories.
So ice must be liquid and gas to be water?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
each of the persons is God, which is true but ambiguous. Here 'God' might be better translated as 'divine'.
Pity you weren't around to advise the compilers of the Nicene Creed, who referred to Christ as "God of God".
If you can't say the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, then you are outside Christian orthodoxy, but if you can, then you are outside logic, because God (as depicted in the OT, for example, where there is o overt Trinitarianism) is one - not one substance, but one person - and cannot within the bounds of logic be also three persons each of whom is fully God.
quote:
[QBIn 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. [/QB]
True, but not here applicable, because an assertion that three persons, each of whom is wholly God, are not only one substance but simultaneously one person, is in fact a logical contradiction.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
True, but not here applicable, because an assertion that three persons, each of whom is wholly God, are not only one substance but simultaneously one person, is in fact a logical contradiction.
No, it is not. "Married bachelor" is a logical contradiction. The way the words are defined makes it impossible. But "person" and "substance" are not logically equivalent nouns. They are not defined in such a way as to be insuperable. Something can be a substance but not a person (a rock, say), and something can be a person but not a substance (an angel). They are not wedded (heh) the way "bachelor" and "unmarried" are wedded.
Look up what "logical contradiction" means. This ain't one.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It ain't just RCs and Orthodox who level such charges.
You would think they had better things to do, such as teaching their own flocks.
From my experience of RCs and Orthodox, there is as much or more theological ignorance - not to mention superstition and syncretism - at the grassroots level as there is in Protestantism.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It ain't just RCs and Orthodox who level such charges.
You would think they had better things to do, such as teaching their own flocks.
From my experience of RCs and Orthodox, there is as much or more theological ignorance - not to mention superstition and syncretism - at the grassroots level as there is in Protestantism.
Therefore PSA is correct? Weak argument.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Something can be a substance but not a person (a rock, say), and something can be a person but not a substance (an angel).
Just to be pedantic: angels are substances in the metaphysical sense in play here. A substance is a distinctly existing entity.
(The most common meaning in modern English, the material out of which something might be made, is not relevant here.)
According to my (Western) understanding of the Trinity, the three persons of God are one substance because the existence of each implies the existence of the other two. Eastern theologians might think I'm playing down the primacy of the Father by saying so.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
each of the persons is God, which is true but ambiguous. Here 'God' might be better translated as 'divine'.
Pity you weren't around to advise the compilers of the Nicene Creed, who referred to Christ as "God of God".
'Divine one of divine one'. (Latin forms adjectival nouns much more easily than we do. I believe the same is Greek.)
quote:
If you can't say the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, then you are outside Christian orthodoxy, but if you can, then you are outside logic, because God (as depicted in the OT, for example, where there is o overt Trinitarianism) is one - not one substance, but one person - and cannot within the bounds of logic be also three persons each of whom is fully God.
Christian orthodoxy rules out the claim that God is one person.
If you're going to claim that because the OT doesn't overtly depict God as a Trinity then God must be simultaneously a Trinity and also not a Trinity: that God is not a Trinity is also true - then yes you're uttering a logical contradiction. That's not due to Christian orthodoxy though.
quote:
True, but not here applicable, because an assertion that three persons, each of whom is wholly God, are not only one substance but simultaneously one person, is in fact a logical contradiction.
That would be a logical contradiction. But that the three persons are simultaneously one person is not Christian orthodoxy, which distinguishes between 'ousia/substance' and 'hypostasis/person' precisely to avoid a logical contradiction.
--------------------
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 Jamat:
In Samuel where David returns the ark of the covenant, puts it in a tent and appoints praise singers to worship. He gets to sit in front of it and worship and it is he who says bulls and goats you have not desired etc. He is the game changer oft quoted in the New Testament. He actually gets away with a new kind of sacrifice, praise. He gets away with being close to the ark without being the high priest.
Just a second. So you are saying here that God showed early on that he wasn't particularly interested in the sacrifice per say (a position I think is supported by the prophets eg Amos) and yet you still insist that the atonement was transactional like the temple sacrifice.
But aren't you saying that the temple sacrifice wasn't transactional, at least to the extent that the deity had no obligation to accept it and indeed was fully entitled to say that the sacrifice he wanted was something else?
If that's the case, doesn't your whole argument for the transactional nature of PSA fall down? Doesn't Amos expressly say that God forgives those who do justice (no animal sacrifice, no substitition, no penal necessity), and if God has already said that he rejects the animal sacrifice (or at very least opens the option as far back as Samuel) and accepts an alternative sacrifice, then what happened to the blood being needed to wash away the sin?
[ 30. January 2017, 07:20: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It ain't just RCs and Orthodox who level such charges.
You would think they had better things to do, such as teaching their own flocks.
From my experience of RCs and Orthodox, there is as much or more theological ignorance - not to mention superstition and syncretism - at the grassroots level as there is in Protestantism.
So that makes it alright then?
You have quoted me selectively. You ignored the part where I said that it wasn't only RCs and Orthodox who make these observations - and the context of that is that I have 'allowed' them to during dialogue which I initiated. They don't come round yoy house and knock on my door to relate such observations.
Yes, I've met RCs and Orthodox who are woefully catechised. When I was in a Baptist church an RC once asked me to explain what Baptists believe. I found that I first had to explain to him what Catholics believe ...
No, the part you chose to ignore was where I said that it wasn't just RC and Orthodox clergy who make such observations but also classic Reformed folk as well.
I notice you chose to elide that.
It's no defence of evangelicalism nor of PSA to overlook criticism both from other traditions or from within Protestantism itself.
If you want to defend evangelicalism or PSA then you are going to have to do better than that.
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
each person of the Trinity must be a Trinity in order to be God, producing a sort of infinite regress.
What? 3 holy Spirits? 3 sons? 3 fathers?
Yep, and so on indefinitely....
It's an argumentum ad absurdum put up by anti-Trinitarians, and a reminder to we Trinitarians that Trinitarianism cannot be contained within logical categories.
Have you forgotten, KC, that the Athanasian Creed deals with this one, as I suspect Leo was hinting at?
quote:
"So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts."
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Mousethief;
quote:
This is why people like me say there is no objective, clear, unambiguous meaning of the text, and every single way of taking it is the result of interpretation from particular points of view.
So the Word of God is completely unclear. I think you might find you're disagreeing with Jesus there!
Where do we go for clarity?
You seem to be suggesting we should go to the Orthodox Church; which is so reliable a Biblical interpreter that it was responsible for the Constantinian error of establishing a state church with all the persecution, wars, and other problems which followed. Sorry, I can't see the church that made that error as having any superior authority over the Bible which, if attended to, would have preserved the church from that error and the world from all the consequent pain.
And the advice to follow the Orthodox Church is coming from an adherent thereof who himself doesn't accept the Constantinian error - indeed vehemently rejects it - but also doesn't accept the Bible!! So where can he be getting anything from that we should specially attend to??
And you still haven't, after lots of dancing around it, explained your interpretation of the OT sacrifice system and its place in God's purposes, and why that interpretation is so much better than what I deduced from Scripture.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
You don't know anything about what I believe so you should probably not presume to tell me.
You have stated that you allow your 'Orthodox' Church to guide your conviction. Is that not an abdication of conscience? Of the possibility of a personal responsibility for belief? Coming from Catholicism, I have a pretty good idea of the type of authority structure you rely on. I believe it, like Catholicism is a false and flawed human edifice which claims to do spiritual thinking for one. Your choice of course but if you want to give everyone here advice that they 'interpret' , from your particular church tower, then perhaps instead of chucking rocks you could tell us how candles, icons, 'priestly' incantations and belief in the virginity of Mary are a better way to go. In the end this is about eternal destiny, salvation, and there is only one chance to get it right. There is a hell and to believe in and rely on lies could be very costly. I realise this post will probably offend you and, as in the past, draw a vitriolic response but I prefer to be clear at least about my convictions on the matter and that is that the centre of Christianity and our only hope is Christ's atoning death as stated pretty clearly in 1 Cor 15:3-6. 'Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.' (V3) this was to Paul, of 'first importance.'
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Where is the pre-exilic statement that God doesn't really need all these sacrifices after all? I admit I haven't memorized the entire Torah, so I may be missing something.
In Samuel where David returns the ark of the covenant, puts it in a tent and appoints praise singers to worship. He gets to sit in front of it and worship and it is he who says bulls and goats you have not desired etc. He is the game changer oft quoted in the New Testament. He actually gets away with a new kind of sacrifice, praise. He gets away with being close to the ark without being the high priest.
Sorry, can you quote the reference for this in Samuel, I can't seem to find it.
I do find relevant stuff in Psalms 50 and 51, the former being attributed to David's apppointed choir leader Asaph, the latter to David himself in his repentance over his affair with Bathsheba and murder of her husband; so clearly the idea goes back at least to the time of David, well pre-Exilic.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And you still haven't, after lots of dancing around it, explained your interpretation of the OT sacrifice system and its place in God's purposes, and why that interpretation is so much better than what I deduced from Scripture.
So what do you make of Jamat's point that the temple sacrifice wasn't actually necessary? What was God getting (in the transactional sense you've previously described) from a sacrifice of praise (or Amos' justice like a never-ending stream)??
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Where is the pre-exilic statement that God doesn't really need all these sacrifices after all? I admit I haven't memorized the entire Torah, so I may be missing something.
In Samuel where David returns the ark of the covenant, puts it in a tent and appoints praise singers to worship. He gets to sit in front of it and worship and it is he who says bulls and goats you have not desired etc. He is the game changer oft quoted in the New Testament. He actually gets away with a new kind of sacrifice, praise. He gets away with being close to the ark without being the high priest.
Jamat, can you give me the reference in Samuel, I can't seem to find it.
I do find relevant stuff about the sacrifices in Psalms 50 and 51, the former attributed to David's appointed choir leader Asaph, the latter to David himself in his repentance over his sinful affair with Bathsheba and his murder of her husband. This does put that understanding of sacrifice well pre-Exilic.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I think Jamat is probably talking about 1 Samuel 15 22-23 and 2 Samuel 6 (maybe?).
Also linking to Psalm 40
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Thanks mr cheesy. I'd basically looked at 2 Sam 6 myself and it didn't seem to contain the relevant words. Psalm 40 adds to the evidence from the period.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by mr cheesy;
quote:
So what do you make of Jamat's point that the temple sacrifice wasn't actually necessary? What was God getting (in the transactional sense you've previously described) from a sacrifice of praise (or Amos' justice like a never-ending stream)??
Jamat will have to answer for that one himself.
I see the sacrifices as necessary, but as the writer of Hebrews expounds, also necessarily inadequate and pointing forwards to the more perfect sacrifice of Jesus.
In the transaction God is not 'getting' but ultimately giving; and he gives because in a real world, and real relationships between God and men, sin has created real consequences which have to be dealt with. Either the guilty man must be held accountable and justly pay the consequences, or God must forgive and make the payment himself as an act of grace (ie, not something he is obliged or forced to do, but a voluntary generous act on his part).
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Thanks mr cheesy. I'd basically looked at 2 Sam 6 myself and it didn't seem to contain the relevant words. Psalm 40 adds to the evidence from the period.
And also seems to undermine your insistence that a price must be paid. The burned sacrifice was not desired.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I see the sacrifices as necessary, but as the writer of Hebrews expounds, also necessarily inadequate and pointing forwards to the more perfect sacrifice of Jesus.
A position disproved by the bible verses we are currently discussing. Clearly, according to Samuel and David in those passages, the sacrifices were not "necessary".
quote:
Either the guilty man must be held accountable and justly pay the consequences, or God must forgive and make the payment himself as an act of grace (ie, not something he is obliged or forced to do, but a voluntary generous act on his part).
Or, in fact, if he is David he can dance about in the sanctuary before God without the sacrifice. And if he is the one speaking through Amos, he can decide that sacrificing and dancing is not enough, and what he really wants instead is justice.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've got to be honest, Kaplan's posts on the Trinity have surprised me ...
But then, I may have misunderstood what he's getting at.
But then, I wouldn't expect creedal exactitude from some independent evangelical quarters ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Before Mousethief comes back, vitriolically or otherwise, to defend his belief in the authority of the Church - as he defines it - to correctly interpret scripture, I would like to remind our independent Protestant contributors here that, like it or not, they are also following a 'tradition' of biblical interpretation ... and they are deferring to that tradition as the final arbiter in matters of faith and practice.
In fact, we all do the same.
Whether we are RC, Orthodox, Anglican, independent evangelical, Anabaptist or whatever else we are all reading and interpreting the scriptures in the light of our own received tradition.
That doesn't mean that we are allowing our tradition to 'do our thinking for us', it's more that the way we think and the way we approach things is informed and shaped by our tradition.
How can it be otherwise?
Jamat's worldview and modus operandi is shaped and informed by a particular form of conservative evangelicalism which derives from particular 19th century developments - which aren't shared by all evangelicals - as well as earlier influences.
Steve Langton's approach is shaped and informed by the Anabaptist tradition that he embraces and represents.
All of us bear the imprint of whatever formative influences we've been through or whichever Christian tradition we have been involved with.
From my reading of what Mousethief has posted, it doesn't seem to be that he has 'rejected the Bible'. Rather, he has rejected a particular way of interpreting the Bible and accepted a different one, a different set of lenses if you like - the interpretative framework offered by the Orthodox Church.
How is that any different in essence to what Jamat or Steve Langton or any of the rest of us have done? Jamat's interpreting scripture through a Dispensationalist, fundamentalist evangelical lens - perhaps in reaction against the Roman Catholicism of his upbringing ... who knows?
Steve's coming at the whole thing from an Anabaptist perspective and I'm coming at it from a range of perspectives some of which I share - or have shared - in common with both these guys and some of which come from other directions.
The point is, we're all wearing spectacles.
At least Mousethief is acknowledging that and not pretending that he is approaching the scriptures without them.
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Steve Langton's approach is shaped and informed by the Anabaptist tradition that he embraces and represents.
And don't ignore also in the much wider evangelical community in the UK with its history of interdenominational cooperation in mission work, student work, book publishing, etc. And because of the particular way Mennonites have worked in the UK, I'm still very much part of that wider community.
And a considerable influence from one CS Lewis....
And I don't confine myself just to reading books from my own party - I read lots of other people's stuff as well and assess it as best I can.
I don't think Mousethief exactly 'rejects the Bible'. My problem there is that on a very key point which compromises the authority of the original Orthodox church he apparently disagrees with the said Orthodox church but still doesn't seem to accept the Bible as a better authority. And to my mind that leaves his source of authority as very uncertain and of questionable reliability.
I'm NOT claiming any kind of special unusual authority - just reading the Bible, trying to understand it AS A WHOLE, and sharing what I find with fellow Christians - and as far as I'm concerned if they can show I've got it wrong, well I want to know that, I don't want to carry on being wrong (That's kind of an Aspie-way-of-thinking priority!).
When special authority is being claimed, as by the Orthodox Church or the RCC, it needs to justify itself. And it's not easy to believe in special authority of churches which supported the Constantinian error for centuries and which, in the case of the Orthodox, are clearly divided anyway, with MT seemingly opposing the mainstream Orthodox tradition.
In addition to which both Orthodox and RCC officially say the Bible is the Word of God - so of course they shouldn't be contradicting it....
Which is something of a tangent here; I'm still waiting for MT to come back with how he interprets the fact that God set up the OT sacrificial system and what does that imply for atonement theories??
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I see the sacrifices as necessary, but as the writer of Hebrews expounds, also necessarily inadequate and pointing forwards to the more perfect sacrifice of Jesus.
A position disproved by the bible verses we are currently discussing. Clearly, according to Samuel and David in those passages, the sacrifices were not "necessary".
quote:
Either the guilty man must be held accountable and justly pay the consequences, or God must forgive and make the payment himself as an act of grace (ie, not something he is obliged or forced to do, but a voluntary generous act on his part).
Or, in fact, if he is David he can dance about in the sanctuary before God without the sacrifice. And if he is the one speaking through Amos, he can decide that sacrificing and dancing is not enough, and what he really wants instead is justice.
Fact 1;
God commanded the OT sacrifices in relation to atonement, thank-offerings, and various other purposes. He commanded them presumably for good reason.
They were necessary in that time to teach basic lessons about atonement; they are now superseded by the sacrifice of Jesus to which they pointed and about which they can even now serve as aids to understand/interpret what Jesus did.
Some in OT times misinterpreted the sacrifices in various ways and had to be reminded that they were not doing God a favour or buying His favour, but taking part in rites which signified gracious divine forgiveness and which required not just the mechanical performance of the ritual but also genuine repentance and change of conduct to make them meaningful. Sacrifices not reflecting that spirit and attitude were meaningless and unnecessary.
Read Hebrews for an NT take on this point.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
