Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
If those are my only choices, then Satan-ward is the one that fits best, I think.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think that the payment of ransom has as little to do with paying anything personally to the Devil as going to jail and being 'detained at her majesty's pleasure' has anything to do with her majesty, pleasurable or otherwise.

Ransom and satisfaction and even the penal aspect of PSA is basically saying that Christ took on the consequences. We might say that someone falling off a cliff will 'pay the price' of his foolishness, but he didn't have to pay anything to anyone for the privilege of dashing his brains out at the bottom!

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
If those are my only choices, then Satan-ward is the one that fits best, I think.

---

I think that the payment of ransom has as little to do with paying anything personally to the Devil as going to jail and being 'detained at her majesty's pleasure' has anything to do with her majesty, pleasurable or otherwise.

Ransom and satisfaction and even the penal aspect of PSA is basically saying that Christ took on the consequences. We might say that someone falling off a cliff will 'pay the price' of his foolishness, but he didn't have to pay anything to anyone for the privilege of dashing his brains out at the bottom!

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Those are all concerns of the "God-ward" images that are based in defining the "sin problem" as "God's wrath/justice/holiness against human sinfulness"-- you don't find those problems in the other metaphors. IMHO the problem with the God-ward metaphors is a faulty view of God. But again, I think that's a limitation of metaphor, and why we need more than just the two God-ward explanations.

---

Well, yes I do think other metaphors are better - but evangelicals in particular seem to lack a sense of consistency.

I don't mean to say that things perfectly line up together (I don't believe they do), but too often evangelicals seem to push PSA to the exclusion of all other metaphors and seem blinded to the biblical text which does not seem to back up the narrow view.

For example, I've heard many times (too many to count, probably) that sinful man cannot approach the perfect deity. Therefore, this trope goes, sacrifice is necessary.

However, a cursary glance at OT stories and characters shows that this isn't backed up by the text. Almost nobody is pictured as having a sacrifice to purify themselves before meeting with God, and indeed in the vast majority of cases God is pictured meeting with man and not the other way around.

The idea that God is contaminated by man's sinfulness seems to be the opposite of the truth (in my view supported by stories and metaphors in the NT as well), namely that God is a "disinfectant" and reaches out to those who are contaminated.

Of course I appreciate that this is an oversimplification and not every Evangelical thinks like this, but I think this way of explaining the atonement is very widely used.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

In the modern hymn, 'the wrath of God was satisfied' means that the requirements of wrath, the consequences of wrath, were satisfied. Jesus didn't satisfy the Father.

---

quote:

---

The satisfaction of God was the knowledge that justice was fulrfilled and the sinner can go free.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mudfrog

quote:

---

In the modern hymn, 'the wrath of God was satisfied' means that the requirements of wrath, the consequences of wrath, were satisfied. Jesus didn't satisfy the Father.

---

Come off it, Mudfrog! I've never read such sophistry in ages.

What does it mean to say "Jesus didn't satisfy the Father" but satisfied the Father's wrath?
(What, by the way, are "the consequences of wrath").

You talk about "the Father's wrath" and "justice" as if they entities independent of God.

Surely, "wrath" is an attribute of God, ditto his sense of "justice"

If the Father's wrath is satisfied does it not mean the Father is satisfied?


Haven't you got yourself into this mess because you realise that PSA tests Trinitarianism to distraction?

Mudfrog .

quote:

---

The satisfaction of God was the knowledge that justice was fulrfilled and the sinner can go free.

---

Why couldn't he just let the prisoner go free? Or let him go free provided he repented? Why it required the death of his innocent son is not obvious. Nor, incidentally, is it obviously just that a sinner should suffer eternal torment for being subject to original sin i.e. a condition for which he/she is not responsible.

Incidentally, you place a construction on "It is finished" that is not at all obvious. It could simply mean "my life is over".

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
If those are my only choices, then Satan-ward is the one that fits best, I think.

---

I think that the payment of ransom has as little to do with paying anything personally to the Devil as going to jail and being 'detained at her majesty's pleasure' has anything to do with her majesty, pleasurable or otherwise.

Ransom and satisfaction and even the penal aspect of PSA is basically saying that Christ took on the consequences. We might say that someone falling off a cliff will 'pay the price' of his foolishness, but he didn't have to pay anything to anyone for the privilege of dashing his brains out at the bottom!

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'll probably have some lengthier things to say later, but for now

Mudfrog's discussion of God's wrath seems akin to something I often say - that the word for God's love, which we in turn are meant to emulate, doesn't mean sloppy slushy sentiment but deep caring. If you really care for the good, you will have something like 'wrath' for evil; not a petty spat kind of anger, but a deep opposition to something which itself is opposite to everything true and good.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

f you really care for the good, you will have something like 'wrath' for evil; not a petty spat kind of anger, but a deep opposition to something which itself is . opposite to everything true and good.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Seeing the way Jesus responds to sinners helps shape not only our view of God, but also our understanding of how God views us.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'll probably have some lengthier things to say later, but for now

Mudfrog's discussion of God's wrath seems akin to something I often say - that the word for God's love, which we in turn are meant to emulate, doesn't mean sloppy slushy sentiment but deep caring. If you really care for the good, you will have something like 'wrath' for evil; not a petty spat kind of anger, but a deep opposition to something which itself is opposite to everything true and good.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

quote:

---

Seeing the way Jesus responds to sinners helps shape not only our view of God, but also our understanding of how God views us.

---

And how we should aspire to see each other, with the caveat that we probably shouldn't accept abuse because we also need to love ourselves.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
PSA tests Trinitarianism to distraction?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'll probably have some lengthier things to say later, but for now

Mudfrog's discussion of God's wrath seems akin to something I often say - that the word for God's love, which we in turn are meant to emulate, doesn't mean sloppy slushy sentiment but deep caring. If you really care for the good, you will have something like 'wrath' for evil; not a petty spat kind of anger, but a deep opposition to something which itself is opposite to everything true and good.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
You seem to be creating a theory of Christian karma. How is your consequence theory any different from karma?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'll probably have some lengthier things to say later, but for now

Mudfrog's discussion of God's wrath seems akin to something I often say - that the word for God's love, which we in turn are meant to emulate, doesn't mean sloppy slushy sentiment but deep caring. If you really care for the good, you will have something like 'wrath' for evil; not a petty spat kind of anger, but a deep opposition to something which itself is opposite to everything true and good.

---

A wrath for evil, or a wrath for people who do evil, or a wrath for evil people? One of the chief teachings of the Orthodox Church, which we repeat several times during the Divine Liturgy, is that God loves mankind. I think John 3:16 echoes the same sentiment. One might also mention a number of Psalms that say his lovingkindness endures forever. I have always had a hard time squaring that view of God with the one with the eternal, undying, forever-and-ever wrath towards mankind. Maybe somebody can unsquare this circle for me.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Mark 10:17-22
17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. ‘Good teacher,’ he asked, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’
18 ‘Why do you call me good?’ Jesus answered. ‘No one is good – except God alone.
19 You know the commandments: “You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honour your father and mother.”’
20 ‘Teacher,’ he declared, ‘all these I have kept since I was a boy.’
21 Jesus looked at him and loved him.
‘One thing you lack,’ he said. ‘Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.’
22 At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I am worried that there seems to be developing an idea that God can only be loving if he has no wrath, or that he cannot be loving if there is any wrath at all.

The wrath of God is seen in action in the cleansing of the temple - I see no contradiction in the life and character of Jesus between that and when he wrote in the sand refusing to condemn the adulteress for her sin.

(For what it's worth, there is a hint of the wrath of God in that episode in the very thinly veiled warning to her to 'go and sin no more.' I can't help but feel there is an unspoken 'or else...'
If Jesus were displaying the kind of God who merely reprieves for no other reason than he is a loving and slightly indulgent grandfather, then why would he admonish her in such a way?

---

quote:

---

I've never been into Rob Bell but I have heard some of his live stuff and I was offended by his rant, sorry 'sermon' given on his 'The gods are not angry' tour where he appeared to rubbish the allegedly Biblical doctrine that sacrifices in the OT and The Sacrifice in the NT were basically designed to appease an angry God.
So many people nowadays take this view and ascribe it to PSA - Jesus was the innocent victim of an angry Father. "How bloody unfair is that? It's nothing short of Cosmic Child Abuse!!"

---

quote:

---

Well apart from that charge only sticking - like I've aid a couple of times recently - if we are adoptionists, and Jesus is the innocent man dragged out from the crowd and chosen to be the newly-deified sacrifice to save the souls of all the others people - it is not what PSA is about anyway.

---

quote:

---

Justice demands a consequence and when people ask 'where is the love'? The simple answer is that the love is shown in the giving of the Son by the Father, combined with the self-giving of the Son in total unity.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
All these things are metaphors and analogies, and like all analogies you can only stretch them so far.

---

But the problem is all the analogies seem to me to be very fragile and brittle - you can't stretch them at all. Indeed, they seem to break as soon as you look at them, like a rubber band that's been left on top of a radiator for weeks. Not much bloody use.

Or am I stretching the stretching analogies analogy too far?


I refer the reader to my sig.

[ 10. January 2017, 11:22: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I am worried that there seems to be developing an idea that God can only be loving if he has no wrath, or that he cannot be loving if there is any wrath at all.

The wrath of God is seen in action in the cleansing of the temple - I see no contradiction in the life and character of Jesus between that and when he wrote in the sand refusing to condemn the adulteress for her sin.

(For what it's worth, there is a hint of the wrath of God in that episode in the very thinly veiled warning to her to 'go and sin no more.' I can't help but feel there is an unspoken 'or else...'
If Jesus were displaying the kind of God who merely reprieves for no other reason than he is a loving and slightly indulgent grandfather, then why would he admonish her in such a way?

---

I think most parents can tell you the answer to this. You stop them doing something stupid and they're expecting anger in return. Instead you take away the spoon and say quietly don't do it again.

quote:

---

I've never been into Rob Bell but I have heard some of his live stuff and I was offended by his rant, sorry 'sermon' given on his 'The gods are not angry' tour where he appeared to rubbish the allegedly Biblical doctrine that sacrifices in the OT and The Sacrifice in the NT were basically designed to appease an angry God.
So many people nowadays take this view and ascribe it to PSA - Jesus was the innocent victim of an angry Father. "How bloody unfair is that? It's nothing short of Cosmic Child Abuse!!"

---

I've been "into" Rob Bell for a long time, and he makes far more sense than you do on this to me. If you're offended then maybe stop telling other people what they should be thinking on this topic and stop watching things that make you offended.

quote:

---

Well apart from that charge only sticking - like I've aid a couple of times recently - if we are adoptionists, and Jesus is the innocent man dragged out from the crowd and chosen to be the newly-deified sacrifice to save the souls of all the others people - it is not what PSA is about anyway.

---

It certainly reflects the PSA that I've experienced throughout my years in Evangelical church. If it isn't your belief, well, meh.

quote:

---

Justice demands a consequence and when people ask 'where is the love'? The simple answer is that the love is shown in the giving of the Son by the Father, combined with the self-giving of the Son in total unity.

---

Justice doesn't demand anything when there is nothing to be gained from it. It is not an inevitable transaction whereby you do something and there is a cost tied to it.

That's the fundamental flaw in your thinking.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, it's just a different opinion and those two words 'Rob Bell' are the fundamental flaw in your thinking.

I'd rather read Moltmann than him.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

I've been "into" Rob Bell for a long time, and he makes far more sense than you do on this to me. If you're offended then maybe stop telling other people what they should be thinking on this topic and stop watching things that make you offended.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well, you can say that he makes a lot more sense than me but that's all you say - and it's basically just an insult.
I, however, give my reasoning why I don't like his belief. What I am offended by is his setting up a straw man and then using his buy-a-ticket-only book-launching tour, to knock it down.

---

quote:

---

He might be popular (at one time) but he's hardly a mainstream theologian.

---

quote:

---

When I state some of my position on the PSA thing, trying to open up dialogue and express it in a way that lays to rest some inaccurate, though sincerely held misconceptions, all you can do is basically react with 'meh'.

So, no real discussion from the Rob Bell fanclub then.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
An Orthodox priest once observed to me that he thought part of the problem was that there's never been an opportunity for an Ecumenical Council to 'settle' the issues around our understandings of the atonement.

---

quote:

---

originally quoted by Gamaliel
I can see the issue you're raising and I can see the dilemma, but from my reading of what they've written here, I don't see how Lamb Chopped, Steve Langton or Mudfrog have gone 'overboard' on the wrath of God thing - nor have any of htem suggested, as far as I can see, that wrath is somehow part of God's nature in an intrinsic sense - ie. he is ontologically petulant, moody or some kind of cosmic Mr Angry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
All these things are metaphors and analogies, and like all analogies you can only stretch them so far.

In fairness to the proponents of PSA, whatever else may be laid to its charge, I do think that proponents like John Stott in his book, 'The Cross of Christ' do steer well clear of the cruder and more grotesque analogies that are sometimes used - particularly in evangelistic presentations.

---

quote:

---

To be fair, not all PSA proponents descend into such crudity but they have to try pretty hard to distance themselves from it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I am worried that there seems to be developing an idea that God can only be loving if he has no wrath, or that he cannot be loving if there is any wrath at all.

---

quote:

---

The wrath of God is seen in action in the cleansing of the temple - I see no contradiction in the life and character of Jesus between that and when he wrote in the sand refusing to condemn the adulteress for her sin.

---

quote:

---

(For what it's worth, there is a hint of the wrath of God in that episode in the very thinly veiled warning to her to 'go and sin no more.' I can't help but feel there is an unspoken 'or else...'

---

quote:

---

If Jesus were displaying the kind of God who merely reprieves for no other reason than he is a loving and slightly indulgent grandfather, then why would he admonish her in such a way?

---

quote:

---

So, even while God is loving the world 'so much that he gave', the wrath of God has already condemned the world (that's why it's not the task of Jesus to condemn - it's there already)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

I'm not sure I'd accuse him of full-on eisegesis so much as making the kind of hermeneutical leaps that we all make from time to time over all manner of issues.

---

Mais oui!

Posted                       

quote:

---

Wrath’ is an old English word defined in my dictionary as ‘deep, intense anger and indignation’. ‘Anger’ is defined as ‘stirring of resentful displeasure and strong antagonism, by a sense of injury or insult’; ‘indignation’ as ‘righteous anger aroused by injustice and baseness’. Such is wrath. And wrath, the Bible tells us, is an attribute of God.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

I do believe that the wrath of God is an attitude, that is consistent, constant, held rationally and entirely compatible with God's holiness.

---

quote:

---

WRATH.
The permanent attitude of the holy and just God when confronted by sin and evil is designated his 'wrath'. It is inadequate to regard this term merely as a description of 'the inevitable process of cause and effect in a moral universe' or as another way of speaking of the results of sin. It is rather a personal quality, without which God would cease to be fully righteous and his love would degenerate into sentimentality. His wrath, however, even though like his love, has to be described in human language, is not wayward, fitful, or spasmodic, as human anger always is. It is as permanent an element to his nature as is his love.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Without looking up chapter and verse, he says something to the effect that Original Sin and so forth in no way removes individual culpability ... so it's not like criticising a fox for eating a chicken or a rabbit for eating your lettuces.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As I'm sure you're aware, Kwesi, Calvin tries to address that point in his Institutes. I'm not sure how successfully ...

Without looking up chapter and verse, he says something to the effect that Original Sin and so forth in no way removes individual culpability ... so it's not like criticising a fox for eating a chicken or a rabbit for eating your lettuces.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

On the anti-PSA thing, yes, I'm sure that many anti-PSA people, including some on these boards, can caricature the position that evangelicals take on this one ...

But I return to an earlier observation that I'm afraid I would have to concede that those from within a broadly evangelical camp who have begun to question PSA - the likes of R*b B*ll and Steve Chalke seem to be doing so not simply under the influence of 'womanist' theology but partly because they've been exposed to the wider Christian traditions and also because so many evangelicals DO present a very crude version of PSA.

I mean, even given the exaggerations that have undoubtedly developed in the family history of my in-laws, there's no smoke without fire.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There has to be a way of acknowledging God's justifiable and righteous anger against sin whilst holding it in balance with his justice, mercy and inherent goodness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Besides, if we want to challenge PSA there are other grounds for doing so - and again, I'm not throwing it out entirely - simply suggesting that like other atonement models it can only be stretched so far ...

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:


Okay, karma. I can't say I know all the ins and outs of what this means past the popular definition, as I've not studied it in any depth. What I do think is that our actions produce consequences, not all of which may be visible, and some of which may be spiritual.

Jesus spoke often of reaping what you sow (and Paul after him, etc.) This suggests to me that there is some principle in the universe which I think of as balance, for want of a better term. Plant weed seeds and you'll get weeds; yell at a coworker and you'll get into a fight; live by the sword and you're likely to die by the sword. These things are observable, and plenty of people have observed them--both in Christianity and outside it. Which is possibly where the idea of karma came from.

Now I don't think there is some sort of spiritual bookkeeper up there keeping track of my bads and goods and making sure I get a precisely calculated payback in this life or another. But I do think that when God undertakes to clean up our spiritual toxic dump, he has to deal with more than just what our eyes can see on the surface.

Let's take that biblical image of sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind. All of the times I "sowed the wind" through my evil actions? Well, the whirlwinds that result are still out there, spinning like mad, waiting to pounce on me sooner or later. What goes around, comes around. Except that now God has stepped in to save me from my own folly, and I am forgiven, and the whole process has gotten short circuited.

Anyway, what happens to those pre-existing twisters that have been sniffing around the edges of my life, waiting to pounce? Do they just suddenly go "poof!" and tidy themselves away into oblivion on their own? I don't think so, no. Someone's got to shut them down.* That someone is God.

Let's take a different image. If I deliberately create a toxic chemical dump on my property, there are two issues to deal with. One is my personal evil choice which led to the disaster; the second is the clean-up.

If I do the spiritual equivalent by falling into evil, God can forgive me for my evil choice. But somebody's still got to clean up the dump. It can't just be left there. It won't go away on its own. I believe that God does that, too--cleans up our spiritual toxic chemical dumps, restores the site, recreates what was ruined. I don't think it happens by itself. I think God actively gets out there and deals with it. And it costs him something--just as it would cost me in ordinary human life if I had to do Superfund clean up.

I hope this makes some sense, as I really ought to be in bed. Good night.

---