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 | | 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 18)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  ...  24  25  26 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Moral Influence atonement theology
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
On the other hand, "seriousness" is a rather silly way to understand something that is clearly understood in different ways.

Indeed. The West has historically understood sin through a judicial crime/punishment lens, while the East (if I understand it right) has understood sin through a more disease/death lens. So which is more serious, murder or cancer?

And how do the differences in understanding what sin is relate to an understanding of what salvation is? What are we saved from? Punishment? Disease? Death? All of the above?

More and more, the Eastern understanding of sin and salvation is the understanding that resonates most with me. PSA, not so much. (And to bring it back to the OP, moral influence doesn't resonate with me very much either.)

[ 07. February 2017, 01:22: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Aha ... So Mousethief doesn't accept that the concept of the Trinity is a logical contradiction ...

Hmmm ...

To be frank, I'm not sure it is when taken on its own terms ie as the only logical way the Fathers and the early Church found to reconcile apparent contradictions in the scriptural data about the Godhead.

Yes, it's ingenious, yes it is a Mystery - and yet it resolves what would otherwise be very messy - and it is propelled by a logical set of premises ...

The scriptures speak of the Father as God. They also strongly suggest that Jesus the Son is God - although Arians object - and that the Holy Spirit too is divine - and not some kind of impersonal power force ...

How do we logically reconcile all of that?

By developing Creeds that represent the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as consubstantial, co-eternal and One in essence and Undivided ...

That's quite a different matter and process to determining which model of the atonement has to carry the most weight or which conveys most comprehensively the essence of the Gospel.

We either say that they all do, to some extent or other but none completely summarise or capture the whole thing in and of themselves - or we start to argue why this, that or the other model should be included and which shouldn't.

In doing so, then logic clearly comes into it, but also attention to the interpretation of scripture and to the way these things have been understood across Christianity as a whole over the centuries.

What we can't say, it seems to me, is that just because concepts like the Trinity are hard to grasp and reconcile then the same qualities found elsewhere are necessarily a sign of their validity.

'The Trinity is illogical, so is PSA, therefore PSA must have a similar status in Christian belief ...'

No. That's not how these things work.

I can see grounds for a belief in PSA, but by the same token, grounds for understanding the atonement differently. I'm Anglican enough and moderate enough to consider that the Eastern and Western concepts may prove complementary rather than contradictory ...

But wiser minds than mine will have been puzzling that one ...

As the OP mentions Moral Influence, and as we've mostly been debating PSA, I agree with Nick ... It seems the least 'satisfactory' of all the models ... And yes, the older I get, the more I incline towards the Eastern approach to these things ..

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Is there a correlation between one's view of sin and the atonement theory one prefers?

Does PSA reflect the heightened seriousness with which one takes his/her personal sin/guilt?

And at the other extreme to that, where one rejects original sin and prefers a more environmental cause of 'wrongdoing' - maybe a societal sin, rather than personal guilt, then one prefers more of a moral influence type of atonement theory, or perhaps even a mere 'example' theory which encourages mankind to live a better life of faith and obedience, rather than having penalty for sin?

I'm sure there's a connection between PSA and one's personal view of sin, but I'm not sure that it works in the way you describe.

There are at least three possible problems stemming from sin. Two are intrinsic to sin itself: it imprisons us ('the good that I would do I do not do and the evil that I would not do I do'); and it poisons us and kills us. A third, extrinsic one, is that God punishes us for it.

Christus Victor and participation theories deal with the intrinsic problems. PSA deals solely with the extrinsic problem.
If you think that the problem of sin is that it enslaves and kills us, both as individuals and as a society, then Christus Victor and participation become important. PSA alone treats those problems as something God can just in God's omnipotence annul.

If you think that we could all get on reasonably well despite sin if it were not for God's judgement, then you'll see the primary evil of sin as the guilt, which PSA addresses. If you reject PSA, you'll generally think that once the power of sin is dealt with God can in God's sovereign freedom forgive.

This probably goes back to people's attitude to morality more generally. People who think that morality is about compassion for other people and about fairness will tend to reject PSA. People who think morality is also about respect for authority and doing what you're told may be more inclined to PSA.

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

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
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:
Apparently when I try to do the work for you I'm getting desperate.

So, "doing the work" for me consists of asserting that "Two people can have unity in all relevant senses without thereby ceasing to be two persons"?
I was trying to find a relevant sense which went beyond substance. You've been asserting that there is a relevant sense but haven't said what it is.

quote:
It is impossible for two people, no matter what their similarities of temperament, purpose etc. to be describable as "having unity in all relevant senses" because they retain their individual and different internal and individual personal psychologies.
It makes no sense to talk about God, necessarily existing being, perfectly simple, the eternal creator and sustainer of the universe, no matter how many persons you think God is in, as having an internal and individual personal psychology. Any individual personal psychological traits would be contingent facts, and there are no contingent facts about God.

quote:
And that supposed to be a useful analogy of the Trinity?
Jesus explicitly says that the unity between Jesus and the Father is a useful analogy of how we should be one.

[ 07. February 2017, 08:19: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

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

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There used to be an idea that the truly rejuvenated Christian was not only forgiven but actually stopped sinning. Which seems simultaneously battling reality and also wildly optimistic. I don't think anyone seriously thinks that any more.

It would be a lot simpler if that was true.

I wonder if PSA retains something of that idea; the finality of the atonement together with the blackness of the sin might undermine ones own perception of ongoing sinfulness.

ISTM that the moral influence theory has a more realistic perception of the Christian life. Gone is any perception of sinlessness. One isn't even necessarily believing that one is growing or gettinguch better. Instead the focus on the direction of travel, not that one can boast of spiritual accomplishments or how the previous sinful nature has been lost. Instead focussing on carrying the cross and following in humility.

In my view that's a far far more powerful view than any other theory of the atonement. I don't have to know the sense of how Jesus has won the victory, even in the midst of confusing and contradictory ideas about it. I just have to believe and follow the example.

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

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm actually wondering (and I put this very unsubtly) whether (sometimes and by some people) PSA is rejected with the attitude of 'how dare you say my sin merits punishment and deserves wrath?'

It seems to me that as society gets further and further away from accepting that our sin is actually sin - and not mistake, environment, upbringing, diversity, personal choice, lifestyle and independent thought, the less it likes the idea of needed forgiveness, let alone a needed atonement - especially that which is penal!

Oh, and in defence of Protestantism, I think it unfair to impose on it a very odd what is perceived to be a Catholic view of sin indeed. We do not believe that each individual sin is counted up and recorded and that on judgment day even the littlest sin can count against us going to Heaven. In Protestantism, for example, we don't have mortal or venal sins and we don't have to go through the sacraments of confession, penance, final unction, etc, etc, in order to prepare us for the purging fire to remove every last little sinful deed and misdemeanour.

I can't think of anything worse than not having the assurance that the blood of Jesus has cleansed every sin in this life and washed and cleansed my heart.
I could never follow any religion that doesn't give me an assurance that I am seen by God as blameless here and now even whilst I am improving my imperfect discipleship.

I am beginning to wonder whether the hostility to PSA owes more to a view that every single little sin might merit the wrath of God and that there is nothing I can do about it this side of purgatory, and that even if I have lived a 'good life' that one final sin might trip me up at the last minute and bar me from the Kingdom.

Yes, PSA does speak of the wrath of God being satisfied; it does speak of the offense of my sin, but it is my sin (singular) that is atoned for, it is my nature, my 'old man' manifesting itself in sinful actions, attitudes, words and deeds, that is the offence against God's holiness.

And whilst my sins are confessed as I become aware of them, as they are all forgiven and (to use a good evangelical phrase) they are all 'under the blood', I know that because Christ has paid for them, 'there is now (literally) no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

PSA does show the seriousness of sin and the attitude that a holy God takes of my sinful state - which he regards with compassion as well as justice - but it does also give a perfect, 100% solution to that sin - it removes it entirely, without equivocation, without reserve, without doubt.

Because Jesus has died in my place, because he has bore my sin, removed my sin, paid for my sin and satisfied the demands of justice, then I can say with 'blessed assurance' that my sin is gone and my sins totally atoned for.

And if I do sin, then I have an advocate (isn't that a legal term?) in Jesus.

quote:
1My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you will not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate before the Father — Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.
2He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours alone, but also for the sins of the whole world.…

1 John 2

So yes, I believe that PSA does indeed show the seriousness of sin but is the best news because it shows its complete removal -

quote:
O perfect redemption, the purchase of blood,
To every believer the promise of God;
The vilest offender who truly believes,
That moment from Jesus a pardon receives.

I'm not sure that any other atonement model provides that depth of atonement or that personal assurance of sins forgiven.

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

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I would like to amend something I wrote in my latest post above.
I thought I had amended it, added a new phrase but left the old phrase in I am amending it because it's unfair, probably inaccurate and not helpful.

I wrote
quote:
Oh, and in defence of Protestantism, I think it unfair to impose on it a very odd what is perceived to be a Catholic view of sin indeed. We do not believe that each individual sin is counted up and recorded and that on judgment day even the littlest sin can count against us going to Heaven.
It should read
quote:
Oh, and in defence of PSA, I think it unfair to impose on it a very odd view of sin indeed.
My apologies.

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

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mudfrog
quote:
O perfect redemption, the purchase of blood,
" Redemption", of course, is not a feature of PSA, but of ransom theory. In this metaphor divine Redemption is likened to the price paid to a slave owner to free a slave. The question is who owns the sinner for whom Christ as Redeemer pays the price. It is the Devil, is it not? In the quotation form Blessed Assurance the blood is a price paid to Satan, not to satisfy God's wrath.

I agree with you Mudfrog that sin is a serious matter which needs to be confronted. PSA, however, is not the only atonement theory that addresses this problem. Personally I'm attracted to the approach which sees Christ as the Great Physician.

Posts: 1641 | 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 
As long as PSA includes the unqualified universalism of 1 John 2:2, I'd accept it as the only atonement theory!

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, Mudfrog and Fanny Cosby I meant To God be the Glory not Blessed Assurance [Hot and Hormonal] .
Incidentally, I've come across a version of To God be the Glory which has the line"Who yielded his life our redemption to win." I remember it as "Who yielded his life in (sometimes an) atonement for sin." I wonder what the original was.

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thing is, Mudfrog - and I'm also going to put this unsubtly - you seem to assume that any objections to PSA are based on either some kind of Purgatorial late medieval RC perspective on the one hand or some kind of liberal perspective in the other - society is to blame, not individuals ...

I don't see anyone here objecting to it on those grounds. Neither do I see anyone arguing that God winks at sin and isn't bothered by it.

Sure, I get the 'blessed assurance' thing but let's be honest - the evangelical Protestant stress on consciously knowing our sons are forgiven and that our hearts are 'clean' and we are 'under the blood' etc - whilst attractive, isn't necessarily as liberating as it sounds.

It can lead to a pernicketiness that is just as debilitating as worrying whether you've said sufficient Hail Mary's or done sufficient penance.

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

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Aha ... So Mousethief doesn't accept that the concept of the Trinity is a logical contradiction ...

Yesterday, at 0600 Zulu time, Bob Smithers, my next-door neighbor, was physically fully present in both Brussels and Timbuktu.

That is not a logical contradiction. It's impossible. It's ridiculous. But it's not a logical contradiction. People are using "logical contradiction" in a very loose way. Words have meaning for a purpose. Subverting those meanings in an argument doesn't help anything.

--------------------
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      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Imagine a scenario. Sin is a physical object, say a ball. It is chained to my ankle. I am swimming.

PSA says God will not let me get out of the water until He takes the ball off for me. He's pissed at me for having chained this ball to my ankle, and Jesus has to drown (don't worry he's revived) in order to remove it. It may or may not be heavy enough to drown me; that's not the issue.

Sickness theory says the ball weighs a ton and is dragging me down, and God needs to cut it off to prevent my drowning. Jesus cuts it off, is drowned, but again is revived. He's not necessarily pissed at me.

Does the second scenario paint sin as something unimportant, just because God's not pissed at me?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mousethief
quote:
Yesterday, at 0600 Zulu time, Bob Smithers, my next-door neighbour, was physically fully present in both Brussels and Timbuktu.
That is not a logical contradiction. It's impossible. It's ridiculous. But it's not a logical contradiction.

An individual cannot be in two different places at the same time.
Bob is an individual.
Therefore, Bob cannot be in Brussels and Timbuktu at the same time.

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  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 is a logical contradiction as much as something we have yet to experience or explain yet. Bob could be a robot brain with two bodies in different places. Bob may somehow have discovered a way to cheat time and come back to inhabit a different geographical space in the same time zone. I admit that these are far fetched explanations, but given that it is possible to offer any kind of explanation suggests that it can't be a logical impossibility.

A logical impossibility is something which can't be two opposites at the same time.

In that sense the incarnation is a logical contradiction in that everything we know about being a deity rules out being human and vice versa. To talk about this oxymoron with any sense, we've had to redefine what we mean when we talk about something being divine (and also lijely what we mean about something being human).

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

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well yes, and the Chalcedonian 'definition' of Christ being fully man and fully God at one and the same time - not 50/50 or 60/40 but 100/100 ...

However, I do agree with Mousethief that the term 'logical impossibility' is being bandied about quite loosely here as short-hand for 'something we cannot explain ...'

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mudfrog
quote:
O perfect redemption, the purchase of blood,
" Redemption", of course, is not a feature of PSA, but of ransom theory. In this metaphor divine Redemption is likened to the price paid to a slave owner to free a slave. The question is who owns the sinner for whom Christ as Redeemer pays the price. It is the Devil, is it not? In the quotation form Blessed Assurance the blood is a price paid to Satan, not to satisfy God's wrath.

I agree with you Mudfrog that sin is a serious matter which needs to be confronted. PSA, however, is not the only atonement theory that addresses this problem. Personally I'm attracted to the approach which sees Christ as the Great Physician.

Yes, I am more than aware of that. The point of the quote from To God be The Glory was not the first couplet of the verse but the second:
quote:
The vilest offender who truly believes,
That moment from Jesus a pardon receives.

I was trying to emphasise the total forgiveness given to even the worst sinner and the worst of sins.

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

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
As long as PSA includes the unqualified universalism of 1 John 2:2, I'd accept it as the only atonement theory!

There is no unqualified universalism in that verse; there is, of course, unlimited atonement: For the world.
This is the problem when one takes a verse out of the context of the whole. God may indeed have loved the world so much that he gave is only begotten Son, but it's whosoever believes that shall not perish, not the whole world that will be universally saved.

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

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Imagine a scenario. Sin is a physical object, say a ball. It is chained to my ankle. I am swimming.

PSA says God will not let me get out of the water until He takes the ball off for me. He's pissed at me for having chained this ball to my ankle, and Jesus has to drown (don't worry he's revived) in order to remove it. It may or may not be heavy enough to drown me; that's not the issue.

Sickness theory says the ball weighs a ton and is dragging me down, and God needs to cut it off to prevent my drowning. Jesus cuts it off, is drowned, but again is revived. He's not necessarily pissed at me.

Does the second scenario paint sin as something unimportant, just because God's not pissed at me?

That's perfectly OK.
Not every scenario that describes our burden of sin and need of rescue needs PSA.

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

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
An individual cannot be in two different places at the same time.

That is not part of the definition of "individual." It is something we believe about individuals, but it is something we have come to believe through experience, not something that is part of the definition of "individual."

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
A logical impossibility is something which can't be two opposites at the same time.

Almost. A logical impossibility is something that can't be true. It needn't have anything to do with opposites.

quote:
In that sense the incarnation is a logical contradiction in that everything we know about being a deity rules out being human and vice versa. To talk about this oxymoron with any sense, we've had to redefine what we mean when we talk about something being divine (and also likely what we mean about something being human).
I'm not seeing it. It is not a matter of logic. It is not part of the definitions of the words.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mudfrog
quote:
I was trying to emphasise the total forgiveness given to even the worst sinner and the worst of sins.

.......but isn't that common to other atonement metaphors and theories?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
That's perfectly OK.
Not every scenario that describes our burden of sin and need of rescue needs PSA.

Then PSA is not necessary, and is merely a metaphor. It is not necessary in order to bring home the full weight (if you'll pardon the expression) of our sins. The very very badness of sin can be illustrated without it. It has been claimed on this very thread that without PSA one doesn't show enough seriousness about sin. I believe this illustration shows one can believe sin is very, very bad without needing PSA.

You may not have a problem with that. In which case this scenario was not a counterargument to your position. Let's let those who are in that boat respond.

[ 07. February 2017, 15:11: Message edited by: mousethief ]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  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 Kwesi:
Mudfrog
quote:
I was trying to emphasise the total forgiveness given to even the worst sinner and the worst of sins.

.......but isn't that common to other atonement metaphors and theories?
How does moral influence remove the guilt and penalty of my sin?

How does example provide sacrifice?

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

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
How does moral influence remove the guilt and penalty of my sin?

By the grace of God, freely given.

quote:
How does example provide sacrifice?
In at least one iteration of the Moral Influence theory, it offers a calling to the sacrificial lifestyle.

We might formulate it as: God has generously forgiven me and offered to put me right. My response to such an offer is (1) accept it and (2) lay my life down as a sacrifice as Jesus taught and showed me as (3) he continues the process of healing and saving me.

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

Posts: 10697 | 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 mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
That's perfectly OK.
Not every scenario that describes our burden of sin and need of rescue needs PSA.

Then PSA is not necessary, and is merely a metaphor. It is not necessary in order to bring home the full weight (if you'll pardon the expression) of our sins. The very very badness of sin can be illustrated without it. It has been claimed on this very thread that without PSA one doesn't show enough seriousness about sin. I believe this illustration shows one can believe sin is very, very bad without needing PSA.

You may not have a problem with that. In which case this scenario was not a counterargument to your position. Let's let those who are in that boat respond.

If my soul needs cleansing then the atonement must speak to me of cleansing.
If my heart needs healing, then the atonement needs to speak to me of healing.
If I need my guilt taken away and justice needs to be satisfied, then I need an atonement that will deal with that too.

What people still have not grasped is this:
The atonement must deal with every description of human sin that people on this thread have described - sins of negligence, weakness and our own deliberate fault.

I believe that every single theory of atonement is relevant and useful depending on which aspect of sin I am focussing upon.

I cannot discount any single one of them.
But neither can I discount PSA because there is an aspect to sin that speaks of rebellion, that offends justice, that requires a sacrifice that can actually take my place and reflect the truth that he was pierced for my transgressions, crushed for my iniquities and that the punishment that brought me peace was on him.

If there is no PSA then the other theories of the atonement will adequately cover all other aspects of sin, brokenness, fallenness and dis-ease, but what will take away my guilt and my sin that deserves condemnation?

Jesus himself said that those who do not believe are still in condemnation. So what is there in atonement that will remove that condemnation if not the condemnation of the Saviour who died for me?

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

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
How does moral influence remove the guilt and penalty of my sin?

By the grace of God, freely given.

quote:
How does example provide sacrifice?
In at least one iteration of the Moral Influence theory, it offers a calling to the sacrificial lifestyle.

We might formulate it as: God has generously forgiven me and offered to put me right. My response to such an offer is (1) accept it and (2) lay my life down as a sacrifice as Jesus taught and showed me as (3) he continues the process of healing and saving me.

Exactly; God has generously and at considerable cost - represented to us in the historical costly death of Jesus - forgiven us. And our response to this costly forgiveness is ... as above. And that grace of God is indeed freely given - but like similar gracious forgiveness in human terms, freely to us is costly to the forgiver.

A death of Jesus only intended to have 'moral influence' is effectively 'empty' and has nothing in it to offer any meaningful influence. Only a death of Jesus that actually achieves something - in this case, actual paying-the-price-forgiveness - can carry the moral weight to influence anybody.

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  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:
How does moral influence remove the guilt and penalty of my sin?

By the grace of God, freely given.

quote:
How does example provide sacrifice?
In at least one iteration of the Moral Influence theory, it offers a calling to the sacrificial lifestyle.

We might formulate it as: God has generously forgiven me and offered to put me right. My response to such an offer is (1) accept it and (2) lay my life down as a sacrifice as Jesus taught and showed me as (3) he continues the process of healing and saving me.

1) Upon what basis is this grace freely given? I would strongly suggest that grace is available only through the merits of Christ's death: "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace, which He lavished upon us." (Ephesians 1)

2) Are you suggesting that according to Moral Influence, my own sacrificial lifestyle is what atones for my sin?

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

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
1) Upon what basis is this grace freely given? I would strongly suggest that grace is available only through the merits of Christ's death: "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace, which He lavished upon us." (Ephesians 1)

On the basis that it is the nature of God to forgive the true penitant. And the mark of true repentance is to sacrifice self, to pick up the cross and to spend oneself in service of our neighbour.

quote:

2) Are you suggesting that according to Moral Influence, my own sacrificial lifestyle is what atones for my sin?

There are various formulations, but in the one I am discussing, the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of oneself are closely and intricately linked.

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

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  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:
Exactly; God has generously and at considerable cost - represented to us in the historical costly death of Jesus - forgiven us. And our response to this costly forgiveness is ... as above. And that grace of God is indeed freely given - but like similar gracious forgiveness in human terms, freely to us is costly to the forgiver.

I am discussing (one iteration of) the Moral Influence theory, which does not need there to be a costly death. God forgives because of his grace. Period.

quote:


A death of Jesus only intended to have 'moral influence' is effectively 'empty' and has nothing in it to offer any meaningful influence.

Well only because you have a single-track view of the atonement that requires a costly transaction. In the formulation I am discussing here, the God we see in Jesus set aside some of the things of the divine and came to earth. In doing that there was a cost. But that's not the same as continually claiming that the transactional cost is an essential part of the atonement. No.

quote:
Only a death of Jesus that actually achieves something - in this case, actual paying-the-price-forgiveness - can carry the moral weight to influence anybody.
No. Rubbish.

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

Posts: 10697 | 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 Steve Langton:
Exactly; God has generously and at considerable cost - represented to us in the historical costly death of Jesus - forgiven us. And our response to this costly forgiveness is ... as above. And that grace of God is indeed freely given - but like similar gracious forgiveness in human terms, freely to us is costly to the forgiver.

I am discussing (one iteration of) the Moral Influence theory, which does not need there to be a costly death. God forgives because of his grace. Period.
I am afraid this is not the Christian faith as described in the Bible.
If God can forgive just he because he has decided to, then why not just forgive Adam and Eve?
Why go through the entire Biblical story of sacrifice and redemption?

You cannot just remake the Gospel and have a bloodless Jesus.

"With out the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins." (Hebrews 9 v 22)

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

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
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:
LI am afraid this is not the Christian faith as described in the Bible.
If God can forgive just he because he has decided to, then why not just forgive Adam and Eve?
Why go through the entire Biblical story of sacrifice and redemption?

It absolutely is the narrative of the bible, and if you imply anything else I will fight you. Just because we do not share understanding does not make you "biblical" and me "unbiblical".

God absolutely did forgive Adam and Eve, he said that if they ate the fruit they would die. They didn't.

What he did not do was restore them to the garden, because life choices have consequences. That's nothing about forgiveness.

quote:

You cannot just remake the Gospel and have a bloodless Jesus.

"With out the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins." (Hebrews 9 v 22)

ISTM that you are so entrenched in a single focus painted by evangelical Christianity that you lack the flexibility to appreciate that it is even possible to see it any other way.

I'm not playing silly games of pick-my-favourite-verse with you.

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

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just to clarify, are you suggesting Moral Influence as some kind of 'stand-alone' approach, mr cheesy, or are you considering it alongside or in addition to the other models?

It seems to me that whether we are pro-PSA or anti-PSA, there is still something in the Moral Influence model that somehow 'falls short' - that doesn't quite cover all the bases.

For it to 'work', it seems to me, it requires support from Christus Victor, the various Ransom models and some form of PSA if we are convinced that this is what the scriptures teach ...

Where I would agree with you is that if God forgives then that is his sovereign prerogative and he doesn't need anything extrinsic to himself - a sacrifice or whatever else - to 'enable' him to do so.

However, it still remains that if any of us are going to be saved then this is on the basis of what God in Christ has achieved through the Incarnation, Christ's exemplary life and example and his atoning death and glorious resurrection and ascension ...

It ain't on the basis of how sacrificially we ourselves are able to live ... 'apart from me you can do nothing ...'

So, in one sense, Mudfrog's question, 'On what basis can God forgive is ...?' is a meaningless one. God can forgive us is he so chooses because he is God. He doesn't need any more 'basis' than that.

It's not as if he needs our permission or requires us to jump through particular hoops ...

But he does call us into a relationship - and it seems to me that however we cut it there's some kind of synergistic aspect going on - although the initiative is always God's. 'We love him because he first loved us ...', 'You did not choose me but I chose you ...' and so on - we all know the verses.

There are conundra (is that the word?) / condundrums all ways round. The early Church often wouldn't baptise people until almost death-bed time because it was widely believed that you couldn't sin once you were regenerated - through baptism in that instance ... or, if you did, then you put your salvation in jeopardy ...

I'm a big Wesley fan but his soteriology was all over the place when it comes to things like 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
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:
In the formulation I am discussing here, the God we see in Jesus set aside some of the things of the divine and came to earth.

No he didn't.
He divested nothing of his divinity in the slightest.
Jesus was/is truly and properly man and truly and properly God at the same time. From the moment of the Incarnation there was/is never a time when he was more human than divine.

The passage that is relevant is
Philippians 2:5-11
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

who, being in very nature[a] God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.

And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death –
        even death on a cross!


Notice he 'made himself nothing' not by removing anything but by 'taking on the nature of a servant'. He added humanity to his divinity, his equality with God. He did not become human by divesting himself of divinity.

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

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

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


Notice he 'made himself nothing' not by removing anything but by 'taking on the nature of a servant'. He added humanity to his divinity, his equality with God. He did not become human by divesting himself of divinity.

Drivel. You can't be a man and be everywhere at once, be outside of time or know everything. You can't be divine and die.

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

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mr Gamaliel sir, methinks you might have contradicted yourself whist putting my own argument into better words than I have chosen.

You said
quote:

So, in one sense, Mudfrog's question, 'On what basis can God forgive is ...?' is a meaningless one. God can forgive us is he so chooses because he is God. He doesn't need any more 'basis' than that.

But before that you wrote
quote:
However, it still remains that if any of us are going to be saved then this is on the basis of what God in Christ has achieved through the Incarnation, Christ's exemplary life and example and his atoning death and glorious resurrection and ascension ...

Those two things, it seems to me, are contradictory. If, as you say, salvation is on the basis of what God in Christ has achieved - including the cross - then it is absolutely evident that grace (by which we are saved) is on that very same basis: the achievement of the incarnate Christ, including his atoning death upon the cross.

If there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood, then grace cannot come without it either. Grace is the manner by which the atonement comes, it is not the atonement in itself.

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

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Just to clarify, are you suggesting Moral Influence as some kind of 'stand-alone' approach, mr cheesy, or are you considering it alongside or in addition to the other models?

It seems to me that whether we are pro-PSA or anti-PSA, there is still something in the Moral Influence model that somehow 'falls short' - that doesn't quite cover all the bases.

That's nice. I'm saying there is a perfectly coherent and cogent theory there which was held by the majority of the church for the majority of history. You can say you don't like it if you like, but I believe it has far more power as an idea than PSA or CV.

quote:

For it to 'work', it seems to me, it requires support from Christus Victor, the various Ransom models and some form of PSA if we are convinced that this is what the scriptures teach ...

How so?
quote:


Where I would agree with you is that if God forgives then that is his sovereign prerogative and he doesn't need anything extrinsic to himself - a sacrifice or whatever else - to 'enable' him to do so.

However, it still remains that if any of us are going to be saved then this is on the basis of what God in Christ has achieved through the Incarnation, Christ's exemplary life and example and his atoning death and glorious resurrection and ascension ...

It ain't on the basis of how sacrificially we ourselves are able to live ... 'apart from me you can do nothing ...'

Wrong. If anyone is to follow after me he must deny himself and pick up his cross. A thoroughly gospel enthused idea.


quote:

So, in one sense, Mudfrog's question, 'On what basis can God forgive is ...?' is a meaningless one. God can forgive us is he so chooses because he is God. He doesn't need any more 'basis' than that.

It's not as if he needs our permission or requires us to jump through particular hoops ...

But he does call us into a relationship - and it seems to me that however we cut it there's some kind of synergistic aspect going on - although the initiative is always God's. 'We love him because he first loved us ...', 'You did not choose me but I chose you ...' and so on - we all know the verses.

There are conundra (is that the word?) / condundrums all ways round. The early Church often wouldn't baptise people until almost death-bed time because it was widely believed that you couldn't sin once you were regenerated - through baptism in that instance ... or, if you did, then you put your salvation in jeopardy ...

I'm a big Wesley fan but his soteriology was all over the place when it comes to things like that.

It may surprise you to learn that I see very little basis in the evangelical idea of a relationship with the deity. We are called to follow and obey, not to imagine ourselves as Jesus buddies.

[ 07. February 2017, 16:19: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

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

Posts: 10697 | 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:


Notice he 'made himself nothing' not by removing anything but by 'taking on the nature of a servant'. He added humanity to his divinity, his equality with God. He did not become human by divesting himself of divinity.

Drivel. You can't be a man and be everywhere at once, be outside of time or know everything. You can't be divine and die.
Sorry, what church do you attend?
This is a heresy. You're saying that only the human Jesus died on the cross.

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

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dual nature. I absolutely believe he was fully God and fully man. But also that he left behind something of the divine to cone to earth.

Thanks but you can take your half-baked heresy trial to hell.

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

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  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 haven't got a great deal of time right now, but no, I don't believe I was contradicting myself and I was aware of the apparent contradiction as I was typing ...

The point I was making was that God isn't 'trapped' or backed into a corner by something extrinsic to himself - either a sense of justice or whatever else ...

To posit such a thing would be to elevate the 'must' or 'have to' to a higher plane than the Almighty Himself - which is clearly impossible.

No, God is in Himself Love - he is 'good and a friend of mankind' as the Orthodox liturgy puts it.

God has effected our salvation through the Incarnation and all that this involves - including the atoning death of Christ on the cross - but that isn't separate from the rest of the 'Christ event' nor even the culmination of it - the culmination has yet to come ... and is prefigured by the resurrection, ascension and his intercessory ministry for us ...

And remember, God is outside of time so all this takes place in some kind of eternal 'now' ...

There is a vein of Patristic thought that suggested that even if humanity had not sinned the Incarnation would still have taken place ...

Now, don't misunderstand me. I'm not eliding the atonement. I'm not saying that I disagree with 'without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness' - but what I am saying is that there is a wider context to all of this than what boils down to a somewhat narrow evangelical understanding that focuses on personal and individual soteriology and sometimes overlooks the wider, cosmic aspects ...

I can see what mr cheesy is saying, it's about obedience, not having Jesus as our Best Mate. But God is always personal, always relational.

It's another of these both/and things ...

The Trinity is a relationship. 'God is in himself a sweet society,' as Wesley put it. Love is self-giving, love has an object - love is relational.

On the issue of 'kenosis' - that's another question ...

As with all these things there's a danger of heresy in both directions ... Patripassianism on the one hand or ...

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

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You can't be a man and be everywhere at once, be outside of time or know everything. You can't be divine and die.

That's why the Chalcedonian definition uses 'one person two natures' as the formula.
Jesus can't be everywhere at once or be outside time qua human being, and can't die (or walk up hills for that matter) qua God. But Jesus can be everywhere at once qua God (though his human body can't), and can walk up hills qua human being.

Whether or not the formula works (I think it does myself), the intention is to avoid logical inconsistency.

[ 07. February 2017, 17:49: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

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

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suppose the question is whether, on earth, Jesus had superhuman strength and superhuman knowledge and the ability to be in more than one place at once. I say no, because then he wouldn't be fully human, he'd be some kind of superman.

Then we might ask whether Jesus was in heaven at the same time as on earth. I say no, otherwise he'd be an avatar.

For me the only way to resolve it is as an oxymoron. What did it mean for God to be man? How was it possible to fit the infinite into a finite human body - and still retain whatever-it-is that is divine whilst necessarily limiting his divine powers? No idea.

But somehow Jesus - not an avatar, not a superman, not a projection, not a robot - was at the same time in nature fully a man and fully God-the-son.

I'm not sure this has much directly to do with the atonement, however.

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

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It has everything to do with the atonement.
If we were not fully God he could not represent him to man.
If he were not man he could not represent us to God.

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

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Then we might ask whether Jesus was in heaven at the same time as on earth. I say no, otherwise he'd be an avatar.

In the Liturgy of Chrysostom, every Sunday we proclaim: "In the tomb with the body, in hell with the soul as God, in paradise with the thief and on the throne with the Father and the Spirit, were You, O boundless Christ, filling all things."

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 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 mr cheesy:
I suppose the question is whether, on earth, Jesus had superhuman strength and superhuman knowledge and the ability to be in more than one place at once. I say no, because then he wouldn't be fully human, he'd be some kind of superman.

Then we might ask whether Jesus was in heaven at the same time as on earth. I say no, otherwise he'd be an avatar.

If we apply the one person two natures criterion I think these are answerable.
Superhuman strength: no - Jesus' body had human strength.
Superhuman knowledge: this is more tricky. Jesus having two natures means that Jesus had two "wills" in scholastic terminology - that is, for everything Jesus did he went through the normal human decision-making process and also the divine analogue (it doesn't really make sense to talk about God having a decision-making process). Obviously the two don't ever disagree since they belong to one person. Now the intellect in scholastic theology is parallel to the "will", so by parallel Jesus has a human intellect and a divine intellect. So Jesus' human intellect had to learn everything he knew in a human way in a matter appropriate to a human being, while his divine intellect is still omniscient. What this meant for Jesus' subjectivity is beyond speculation.
More than one place at once: his human body couldn't bilocate without a miracle. The Second person of the Trinity is not strictly speaking anywhere. Therefore as God Jesus wasn't anywhere, and as a human being, wherever his body was.

I cannot see what the objection is to Jesus being an 'avatar'.

[ 07. February 2017, 21:32: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

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

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
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 Dafyd:

More than one place at once: his human body couldn't bilocate without a miracle. The Second person of the Trinity is not strictly speaking anywhere. Therefore as God Jesus wasn't anywhere, and as a human being, wherever his body was.

I cannot see what the objection is to Jesus being an 'avatar'.

Well I suppose the problem is that if Jesus was somewhere else as well as in a human body, it is hard to say that both natures died on the cross.

Avatar I think is a useful idea from Hinduism whereby a god creates a kind of robotic version of himself which can inhabit a human but (to some extent) not be fully present.

I don't know much about Hinduism, but I think calling the human Jesus an avatar of God-the-son suggests something about the deity "out there" creating a human robot. A bit like Lobsang in Terry Pratchett's Long Earth books.

Lobsang has several avatars, when one is destroyed it has limited impact on the "universal" Lobsang, he just creates (or reprogrammes) another.

[ 07. February 2017, 21:42: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

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

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not sure if this is a purely Lutheran thing or not, but when these kinds of discussions come up, we invoke something called "the communication of attributes"--which basically means that each of Christ's two natures helps the other one out when it comes to something the other one is not equipped to do. So things like omnipresence and the other omnis get handled by the divine nature but the human nature is along for the ride in a real way (no dividing Christ up); and things like dying are handled by the human nature and somehow shared with the divine nature. That word "somehow" is pretty key--we can't say exactly HOW it happens, but from Scripture we're pretty sure it does, as the creed makes clear.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm not sure if this is a purely Lutheran thing or not, but when these kinds of discussions come up, we invoke something called "the communication of attributes"--which basically means that each of Christ's two natures helps the other one out when it comes to something the other one is not equipped to do. So things like omnipresence and the other omnis get handled by the divine nature but the human nature is along for the ride in a real way (no dividing Christ up); and things like dying are handled by the human nature and somehow shared with the divine nature. That word "somehow" is pretty key--we can't say exactly HOW it happens, but from Scripture we're pretty sure it does, as the creed makes clear.

Fascinating. Not sure I've ever heard of that.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 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 mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

More than one place at once: his human body couldn't bilocate without a miracle. The Second person of the Trinity is not strictly speaking anywhere. Therefore as God Jesus wasn't anywhere, and as a human being, wherever his body was.

I cannot see what the objection is to Jesus being an 'avatar'.

Well I suppose the problem is that if Jesus was somewhere else as well as in a human body, it is hard to say that both natures died on the cross.

Avatar I think is a useful idea from Hinduism whereby a god creates a kind of robotic version of himself which can inhabit a human but (to some extent) not be fully present.

Jesus' human nature didn't die on the cross. Human natures can't die: they aren't entities or things, let alone living things. Jesus died on the cross.

The logical analysis as I understand it is that being God and being a human being are different logical categories.
The logical categories are the result of Aristotle's analysis of language: contradiction is possible within a logical category but not across two logical categories. So 'Aristotle is a human being' is a statement within one category and contradicts 'Aristotle is a sheep' and 'Aristotle is a rock'. But it doesn't contradict 'Aristotle is a philosopher' or 'Aristotle is a redhead' (I just made that up) or 'Aristotle is eating his breakfast'; because those all belong to different categories.
'God' is not part of any created logical category, so 'Jesus is God' doesn't contradict 'Jesus is human'.
The point of all that is that everything said about Jesus in Jesus' human nature is true of Jesus absolutely. Just as if Aristotle is eating his breakfast that happens to Aristotle the human being or to Aristotle the philosopher.

(I don't think this is true of Hinduism either. I don't think that, say, Krishna was only being controlled by Vishnu as a puppet. Although Hinduism's pantheism complicates matters here, in that everything is really a manifestation of divine reality.)

--------------------
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
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What we can't say, it seems to me, is that just because concepts like the Trinity are hard to grasp and reconcile then the same qualities found elsewhere are necessarily a sign of their validity.

Nobody has argued this.

What has been proposed is that we accept the doctrine of the Trinity (and other doctrines) despite the fact that it raises logical difficulties, and therefore the fact that PSA also raises logical difficulties is not, in itself, a reason to reject it.

Posts: 3355 | 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:
It makes no sense to talk about God, necessarily existing being, perfectly simple, the eternal creator and sustainer of the universe, no matter how many persons you think God is in, as having an internal and individual personal psychology.

An arid, theoretical, Hellenistic deity perhaps.

The Bible is full of references to God as a person with not just attributes in general, but personality traits in particular.

Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  ...  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

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools