|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Moral Influence atonement theology
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But if this means there is something inherent in the situation that brings death upon the sinner, unless something is done on the sinner's behalf that he can't do for himself, then whatever that thing is will need to be done, not as an arbitrary penalty but as a very real necessity.
You are on the right track.
An important premise of the Incarnation is that without it humanity would have been destroyed. PSA makes God the destroyer. I think a better angle is to say that we would destroy ourselves.
The solution, then, and the purpose of the Incarnation, is not just "mercy" but an action by God that actually changed the situation - so that humanity would not destroy itself.
The core of that change would have to be something that made it so that people would no longer be sinners, but would change for the better.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Isaiah 53 refers to the suffering servant but to my knowledge before the advent of Christianity, the suffering servant was not equated to the Messiah
He didn't see the Cross as a response to an angry God...
The risen Christ didn't punish Pontius Pilate or the Roman soldiers for murdering him.
1) They didn't see Isiah 7 and 9 as referring to the Messiah either; it doesn't stop us from doing so.
2) God is not angry.
3) No, he forgave them - because there was something to forgive.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, he forgave them ...
Now, are we saying that he forgave them out of his own prerogative, as it were, or because he is God and to forgive is divine, to err human ...
Or are we saying that Jesus forgave them on the basis of the sacrifice for sins he was about to make on their behalf - and, from what we can gather, no sign of faith or repentance on their part ... ?
You see, whilst I'm not in any wise dismissing the need for atonement, it does seem that the whole thing about God loving people and forgiving people and so on transcends any of the models we might want to line up to explain how it 'works' ...
If the Roman soldiers who nailed Christ to the tree and who'd tortured and scourged him beforehand are forgiven, or among the Elect without knowing it - and sure the Centurion at least showed faith 'Surely this man was the Son of God' - and if Pilate is forgiven and the Sanhedrin 'for they know not what they do' ... then who are we to say who is or isn't forgiven or who is condemned etc ...?
It's not an escape into mushy, wishy-washy mysticism to acknowledge that we can't work out all the ins and outs and nuts and bolts - because the whole Gospel narrative and tenor of scripture doesn't lend itself to being tacked down like a carpet.
As soon as we see one element we think we've got a handle on, we see another one where we have to acknowledge that we haven't ...
If it wasn't like that then there'd be something wrong.
'Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift ...'
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
It also has the huge advantage of not requiring the trinity to be a place of self-recrimination and repugnance. I cannot express how close PSA came to killing my faith because of the angry, self-hating deity it requires if the unity of the trinity is simultaneously taken seriously.
I think this will be the extent of my contribution to this thread, so apologies to those who wish to defend PSA as dogmatically necessary. I just wanted to make people aware of what it can do, and of the alternative understandings that are available.
This.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Dafyd;
quote:
The requirement that God cannot just show mercy
That is the flaw in 'PSA'; the idea that in effect God is so stupid he has put himself into a bind whereby he can't show mercy to law-breaking humanity without killing someone to satisfy an abstract sense of honour or some such. Of course God can show mercy.
But what if the law-breaking has real consequences which have to be dealt with by someone?
But this is why the "Satan-ward" theories work better. They similarly hold that sin has a price, it has consequences-- deadly ones. But the consequences are not the punishments by a vengeful God, they are the natural consequences of aligning ourselves with the evil one (Lewis' depiction in LWW is apt here). So it requires active, sacrificial action on God's part to save us--to rescue, to ransom, or to heal us.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief
So you're saying that they knew about PSA but hushed it up.
Nope,
Thanks for clearing that up then. I completely understand what you were getting at now.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
2) God is not angry.
Whoa. Wait. What? What the hell is "wrath" then? Are we speaking the same language?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
2) God is not angry.
Whoa. Wait. What? What the hell is "wrath" then? Are we speaking the same language?
This is common among inconsistent theologies. I tend to see it among Calvinists who are presenting a very different worldview than my Open/Wesleyan view, but it's probably true of all of us. The common tendency is to dogmatically pursue a particular line of thinking unflinchingly until you arrive at it's natural conclusion-- but when that leads to a particularly nasty natural conclusion, instead of acknowledging that and/or re-examining your core convictions, simply redefine the terms. It's double-speak, and the end result is to make the gospel unintelligible.
This is exasperated when you fail to treat metaphor as metaphor. Again, if we see PSA as a metaphor, the fact that it breaks down at some point is not problematic, and the fact that there are other biblical metaphors only helps. But when you treat PSA as a transaction rather than a metaphor, you end up with some really problematic results which requires this sort of linguistic gymnastics.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
This is exasperated when you fail to treat metaphor as metaphor.
Thank you cliffdweller!
If PSA is a metaphor there is not necessarily any "wrath" in God. "Wrath" is a metaphor for something else. In this case it is a way of speaking of the way that love appears to the wicked.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Gamaliel.
Perfect.
Even tho' you ent where I'm at.
That last post, if one is indulgent (what do you mean we can't say?!), is way on the trajectory.
Drink has been taken (a blended, but from the Lost Distilleries Blended Batch 8, I could have just breathed it in), but I reckon like all good liberal folk thou refuse to see PSA when it's starin' thee in't' face.
Where I'm at is seein' it and raisin' it. Staring it in the face and transcending it. It's pretty obvious that as Christianity was almost exclusively damnationist, patriarchal, sexist, homophobic, racist, classist, placist, warmongering, name it, it was PSA and Christus Victor and ransom and moral influence.
May be not. The point is, even if PSA were the dominant atonement theory since it obviously was in the Bible and the mind of Jesus, it's now useless. Thanks be to God.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
if we see PSA as a metaphor, the fact that it breaks down at some point is not problematic, and the fact that there are other biblical metaphors only helps. But when you treat PSA as a transaction rather than a metaphor, you end up with some really problematic results which requires this sort of linguistic gymnastics.
For your information, I have just invoked the above in Kerygmania.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
if we see PSA as a metaphor, the fact that it breaks down at some point is not problematic, and the fact that there are other biblical metaphors only helps. But when you treat PSA as a transaction rather than a metaphor, you end up with some really problematic results which requires this sort of linguistic gymnastics.
For your information, I have just invoked the above in Kerygmania.
I liked it. : )
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
I suspect most supporters of PSA regard it as The Theory which explains how the atonement works rather than a metaphor which attempts no such thing. For its believers PSA is not a metaphor or a facet, it is The Irrefutable Answer underscored by inerrant scripture, as demonstrated in this thread. That is why some Evangelical (capital 'E) churches and organisations seek to make a declared belief in PSA a sine qua non of leadership if not membership, having a status equal to that of the historic creeds. It also explains why Evangelicals who renounce PSA are anathematised and treated as apostates. Of course such a sectarian mindset betrays a fear that its critics might have the scintilla of a point. For my part PSA is a poor theory and an appalling metaphor which presents God in a most unappealing light and has caused immense psychological and spiritual harm.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
I think it can get overlooked that Jesus as God incarnate is very much NOT ONLY representing God to man, BUT ALSO standing as man's representative before God. In that capacity it does seem appropriate to regard him as in some sense, for example, propitiating God's wrath; even while agreeing that PSA is a minor metaphor compared to the imagery of debt and of the substitute who stands for us in the way of real harm.
And there's also the metaphor of the Passover - Jesus IS 'the Lamb of God' and his death at Passover no accident. The concept behind Passover is pretty indubitably one of substitution even if not of 'penal' substitution.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And there's also the metaphor of the Passover - Jesus IS 'the Lamb of God' and his death at Passover no accident. The concept behind Passover is pretty indubitably one of substitution even if not of 'penal' substitution.
Yes. As St. Paul says, and we repeat more than once as Pascha (literally "Passover" or Easter) approaches, "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Host
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The concept behind Passover is pretty indubitably one of substitution even if not of 'penal' substitution.
No, it isn't.
For the simple reason that the Passover lamb or kid could itself be a "firstborn", and therefore marked for death anyway, if not selected for sacrifice. It did not have to be the case that a non-doomed victim was being substituted for an otherwise-doomed one, so substitution was not of the essence of the Passover sacrifice.
The Passover seems to me to be more about identification as God's people, about inclusion in the group being saved, than it was about swapping one death for another. And the New Testament similarly has a lot more about being included, about being "in Christ", about being united with him in his death and resurrection, than it does about him dying in our place.
That said, I wouldn't be without PSA. In my insecure moments, I do feel that it would be unsatisfactory for my nastier sins to be simply discharged without some sort of penalty, which I fear I would be unable to bear myself. And in my (more numerous) vindictive moments, while I don't want the people who have most hurt me to go to Hell exactly, I do want them to pay. And the Cross, understood as punishment, silences both my spite and my lack of faith in God's mercy. If there is punishment due to me or my enemies (and sometimes I either fear or wish that there were), and Jesus tells me that he has taken that punishment on himself, then that's enough.
I don't know whether there's some real underlying justice which is inarticulately expressed in these unworthy feelings, and that PSA satisfies, but even if this need is entirely a product of my own weakness, it is still a real need, that PSA meets better than any other atonement theory. It's not the main way that I see the atonement, but there's value in it.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
That said, I wouldn't be without PSA. In my insecure moments, I do feel that it would be unsatisfactory for my nastier sins to be simply discharged without some sort of penalty, which I fear I would be unable to bear myself.
That seems a bit like a strawman-- none of the theories of the atonement are discharging sins w/o a penalty-- they all carry the same price for sin, and all acknowledge that we cannot pay it ourselves.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
At the Passover wasn't the lamb sacrificed so that the sentence passed on the guilty Egyptians was not mistakenly executed on the innocent Israelites as well. Not much substitution there!
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
A ransom paid to release someone from bondage does not contain any element of representation and punishment
It certainly does in the Bible, where ransom consists of God, in Christ, paying the required release price - the punishment for humanity's sin.
The price is paid by God to himself in vindication of his holiness, not to Satan.
Satan is not a rival deity to whom God owes a debt as a result of some sort of cosmic parity covenant.
That is the heresy of dualism.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The requirement that God cannot just show mercy is when you look at it 'mystical waffle'
You are evading the fact that God chose, for whatever reason, to not "just show mercy", but to effect it through Christ's sacrifice.
If that sacrifice does not contain penal and substitutionary elements, then it is a meaningless death without salvific significance, and requires "mystical waffle" to cover up the underlying soteriological lacuna and give it pseudo-relevance.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So St Vincent of Lerins was a Protestant then, was he, Kaplan?
You are overreacting and making unnecessarily heavy weather of this, Gamaliel.
My rather obvious point, which I would have thought anyone with any knowledge of church history would regard as commonplace, is that every Christian tradition falls short of Vinny's formula in some area or another, and therefore anyone from one tradition accusing another, de haut en bas, of believing something that has not always been believed everywhere and at all times and by all people, is going to be met with an inevitable "tu quoque".
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
You are evading the fact that God chose, for whatever reason, to not "just show mercy", but to effect it through Christ's sacrifice.
If that sacrifice does not contain penal and substitutionary elements, then it is a meaningless death without salvific significance, and requires "mystical waffle" to cover up the underlying soteriological lacuna and give it pseudo-relevance.
I can't see how you can possibly say this.
A man jumps in front of a lorry to push aside a child. The child survives, the man dies.
The man has not deliberately substituted himself, there is no penal requirement that someone needs to die in that moment.
This can properly be described as a tragedy, and yet the man's selfless actions have saved the child.
I don't think we would describe it as meaningless on the basis that it doesn't include a penal or substitutionay aspect.
[ 15. January 2017, 08:51: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I would assert that the significance of Christ's death depends neither on substitution or punishment but on the resurrection - Christ's defeat of death first requires that he die himself. Death is broken because "death had no power to hold him", and once death is broken all are set free.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Arethosemyfeet: above all, this.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I would assert that the significance of Christ's death depends neither on substitution or punishment but on the resurrection - Christ's defeat of death first requires that he die himself. Death is broken because "death had no power to hold him", and once death is broken all are set free.
Yes, that's it.
But so many questions need to be answered.
How, exactly, does the resurrection defeat death?
I think that there are three answers:
1. Christ's murder exposes the murderers.
2. Christ's willingness to die expresses the primacy of spiritual life over physical life.
3. Christ's resurrection makes it clear that God and the truth cannot die.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The requirement that God cannot just show mercy is when you look at it 'mystical waffle'
You are evading the fact that God chose, for whatever reason, to not "just show mercy", but to effect it through Christ's sacrifice.
That is question-begging or straw-manning or both.
On the other hand, you are reiterating assertions without acknowledging that I've responded to them, which looks awfully to me like you are evading my responses.
quote:
If that sacrifice does not contain penal and substitutionary elements, then it is a meaningless death without salvific significance, and requires "mystical waffle" to cover up the underlying soteriological lacuna and give it pseudo-relevance.
The New Testament contains much of what you dismiss as 'pseudo-mystical' waffle. (e.g. Rom 6:6-8, 'For we know that our old self was crucified with him' - not substitutionary in the slightest - 'But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him') Take it up with Paul.
Your response seems to be that it can't possibly mean what it means at face value, because that would be 'pseudo-mystical waffle', and so it has to mean what you say it means.
Your argument doesn't show that your proposed explanation is on any better footing. And it isn't on any better footing. There is no way that an explanation containing penal and substitutionary elements can be made coherent without lashings of 'pseudo-mystical waffle' holding it together under the surface. For example: 'The price is paid by God to himself in vindication of his holiness' is as pseudo-mystical waffle as pseudo-mystical waffle gets. It does not cease to be pseudo-mystical waffle merely because it's the only thing left after you've issued a blanket dismissal of everything else.
God is under no obligation to 'vindicate his holiness' whatever that is supposed to mean. God is under no obligation that God has not freely assumed. A more coherent interpretation of the Romans 3 passage that I assume you're thinking of is that God is vindicating God's fidelity to God's covenants with humanity and Israel (which God has assumed).
--------------------
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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I would assert that the significance of Christ's death depends neither on substitution or punishment but on the resurrection - Christ's defeat of death first requires that he die himself. Death is broken because "death had no power to hold him", and once death is broken all are set free.
Yes, that's it.
But so many questions need to be answered.
How, exactly, does the resurrection defeat death?
I think that there are three answers:
1. Christ's murder exposes the murderers.
2. Christ's willingness to die expresses the primacy of spiritual life over physical life.
3. Christ's resurrection makes it clear that God and the truth cannot die.
At the most basic level, I would say it is because Christ is risen, never to die again. As to how it applies to us, I've used in the past the image of death as a prison, one that in this case has had the locks broken and the bars pulled out. Once it has been done once, anyone can get out by following the one who did it first.
[ 15. January 2017, 12:19: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
That said, I wouldn't be without PSA. In my insecure moments, I do feel that it would be unsatisfactory for my nastier sins to be simply discharged without some sort of penalty, which I fear I would be unable to bear myself.
This is no less than idolatry. This is creating a deity in the image of one's own insecurities. It is also PSA all over.
Nail God to the cross and keep him there because that way at least you know where the bastard is. All that unpredictable creativity and loving. How dare he.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Eliab.
I liked what you said. It had pathos, it was honest, real. Thunderbunk's right mind.
[ 15. January 2017, 12:43: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
You are evading the fact that God chose, for whatever reason, to not "just show mercy", but to effect it through Christ's sacrifice.
If that sacrifice does not contain penal and substitutionary elements, then it is a meaningless death without salvific significance, and requires "mystical waffle" to cover up the underlying soteriological lacuna and give it pseudo-relevance.
I can't see how you can possibly say this.
A man jumps in front of a lorry to push aside a child. The child survives, the man dies.
The man has not deliberately substituted himself, there is no penal requirement that someone needs to die in that moment.
This can properly be described as a tragedy, and yet the man's selfless actions have saved the child.
I don't think we would describe it as meaningless on the basis that it doesn't include a penal or substitutionay aspect.
And yet the cross was not a tragic accident.
The example you give of the lorry is no way a picture of penal substitutionary atonement - you just made it up to pull PSA down. But that's just par for the course: you and others use daft illustrations or inflammatory language and then say, if that's what PSA is then we reject it. Of course you do! So do I if couched in those terms.
But after you've denigrated the doctrine, what you do not do is offer Scriptural support for te rejection of PSA. Yes, there is support for the other theories as there is for PSA.
What I also see in this board is where people will mention certain aspects of the atonement that don't apply to PSA and then say,'You see, there is no PSA there, so it must be a false doctrine!'
PSA does not exist in every verse in the Bible that speaks of PSA - why should it? That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in other verses. But we're till waiting for an exegesis on those verses that doesn't just dismissively say 'Oh it's a metaphor.'
And as for the anecdotal 'evidence' that evangelicals (even when you say 'some' we know you mean 'all') insist on pain of excommunication that PSA is the only One True Theory.
The Salvation Army believes in total depravity. It believes in the wrath of God and in the general judgment at the end of the world, and in Hell, but whilst we accept PSA and all the theories, this is what our relevant doctrine says:
quote:
We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has by his suffering and death made an atonement for the whole world so that whosoever will may be saved.
We don't make it the benchmark for Salvationist belief - because it's just one way.
And, I agree, it's not the way that is always uppermost but it's not one we can just jettison through personal preference or squeamishness; certainly not through prejudice because the theory has actually been misrepresented by inflammatory and emotive language.
Cosmic child abuse indeed! It's pathetic.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
A ransom paid to release someone from bondage does not contain any element of representation and punishment
It certainly does in the Bible, where ransom consists of God, in Christ, paying the required release price - the punishment for humanity's sin.
The price is paid by God to himself in vindication of his holiness, not to Satan.
Satan is not a rival deity to whom God owes a debt as a result of some sort of cosmic parity covenant.
That is the heresy of dualism.
The problem with dualsim is not that it posits two spiritual powers-- that concept is well represented in Scripture. The problem with dualism is that it posits two eternally equal powers.
Ransom very much does posit the price as paid to Satan-- that is the very thing that distinguishes it from PSA. This passage among others is quite explicit that the ransom is directed "Satan-ward":
quote:
Heb. 2:14-15: ...so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I would assert that the significance of Christ's death depends neither on substitution or punishment but on the resurrection - Christ's defeat of death first requires that he die himself. Death is broken because "death had no power to hold him", and once death is broken all are set free.
Yes. This is the aspect of the atonement that Christus victor in particular brings to the table.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But after you've denigrated the doctrine, what you do not do is offer Scriptural support for te rejection of PSA. Yes, there is support for the other theories as there is for PSA.
What I also see in this board is where people will mention certain aspects of the atonement that don't apply to PSA and then say,'You see, there is no PSA there, so it must be a false doctrine!'
I'm not hearing anyone here saying that, although a few have indicated their distaste for the imagery of PSA. For the most part posters are doing the exact same thing you did in your first para-- bringing the other images in to show that PSA is, in fact, just one of several images, and therefore to be treated as a metaphor and not a transaction.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
PSA does not exist in every verse in the Bible that speaks of PSA - why should it? That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in other verses. But we're till waiting for an exegesis on those verses that doesn't just dismissively say 'Oh it's a metaphor.'
Well, then you're probably waiting in vain. Because it IS a metaphor. Again, the existence of all these other, very different, images that we've presented point us to that. And so it SHOULD be treated as a metaphor. We have pointed out the things about the metaphor that are true-- that sin has a price, that Jesus paid the price, that Jesus' death is necessary and saves us, etc. But we have also pointed out the weaknesses-- things that are not a problem as long as you remember that it is a metaphor, not a transaction.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And as for the anecdotal 'evidence' that evangelicals (even when you say 'some' we know you mean 'all') insist on pain of excommunication that PSA is the only One True Theory..
Well, maybe not excommunication cuz that's not really a thing in most evangelical churches.
I've been an evangelical for 30 some years, in various denominations, and have degrees from 2 large evangelical seminaries. That's not exhaustive knowledge, but it's certainly fairly widespread. So I feel fairly comfortable stating that among most but not all American evangelicals, PSA is by far the primary metaphor that is taught, although that has been changing in recent years, particularly among younger evangelicals. And again, the problem is not so much that PSA is taught or that it's taught exclusively, but that it is so often treated as transaction rather than metaphor. Hence our continued repetition of the "metaphor" thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Cosmic child abuse indeed! It's pathetic.
Not really responsive to what is one of the primary obstacles that keeps people from responding to the gospel. If we can't articulate the gospel in a way that is meaningful, that speaks to the people of this culture and generation, without it sounding like cosmic child abuse, we have a real problem. If we can't articulate the gospel without framing it in a way that sounds like God is an angry, rageaholic who must be placated, whose default stance toward us is not one of compassion or love but of disgust, then we are preaching a false gospel.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If we can't articulate the gospel without framing it in a way that sounds like God is an angry, rageaholic who must be placated, whose default stance toward us is not one of compassion or love but of disgust, then we are preaching a false gospel.
Exactly.
And I find that it's only the opponents of PSA that caricaturise God in such a way, because THIS believer in PSA certainly does not see God in that way!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If we can't articulate the gospel without framing it in a way that sounds like God is an angry, rageaholic who must be placated, whose default stance toward us is not one of compassion or love but of disgust, then we are preaching a false gospel.
Exactly.
And I find that it's only the opponents of PSA that caricaturise God in such a way, because THIS believer in PSA certainly does not see God in that way!
Well, but that's how people are hearing it. That's WHY the opponents of PSA are raising it, and even worse, that's why many of those who reject Christianity are doing so. So again, if your intent in advocating for PSA is to present God as loving or compassionate, there is an epic fail there somewhere. There is a disconnect between what you are wanting to communicate and what a large portion of people are hearing.
I think the disconnect is treating PSA as transaction rather than one of several metaphors. If you have another way of dealing with the disconnect, let's hear it. But simply saying "that's not what we believe" does not address the fact that the opponents of PSA are simply articulating the logical implications of the image. Your comment I was responding to above "Pathetic!" without any further explication is dismissive, and that's a problem for those of us who believe that the atonement offers a life-changing, life-saving message for all of humanity.
[ 15. January 2017, 14:49: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
and yet the cross was not a tragic accident.
The example you give of the lorry is no way a picture of penal substitutionary atonement - you just made it up to pull PSA down. But that's just par for the course: you and others use daft illustrations or inflammatory language and then say, if that's what PSA is then we reject it. Of course you do! So do I if couched in those terms.
If you look, I was replying to the point that the atonement had to be substitutionary and penal otherwise it must be worthless. I was giving an example of a sacrifice that was not meaningless but not penal or substitutionary.
I happen to believe the atonement was more similar to my example than PSA.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If we can't articulate the gospel without framing it in a way that sounds like God is an angry, rageaholic who must be placated, whose default stance toward us is not one of compassion or love but of disgust, then we are preaching a false gospel.
Exactly.
And I find that it's only the opponents of PSA that caricaturise God in such a way, because THIS believer in PSA certainly does not see God in that way!
Well, but that's how people are hearing it. That's WHY the opponents of PSA are raising it, and even worse, that's why many of those who reject Christianity are doing so. So again, if your intent in advocating for PSA is to present God as loving or compassionate, there is an epic fail there somewhere. There is a disconnect between what you are wanting to communicate and what a large portion of people are hearing.
I think the disconnect is treating PSA as transaction rather than one of several metaphors. If you have another way of dealing with the disconnect, let's hear it. But simply saying "that's not what we believe" does not address the fact that the opponents of PSA are simply articulating the logical implications of the image. Your comment I was responding to above "Pathetic!" without any further explication is dismissive, and that's a problem for those of us who believe that the atonement offers a life-changing, life-saving message for all of humanity.
There seems to be a lot of mainline denominations where PSA is not popular at all. Why donīt these "PSA opponents" just make a good job in sharing their own particular version of the atonement and show people this God of love that us bloody evangelicals (and confessional protestants) hide them? Why donīt "PSA opponents" focus in their own problems instead of bothering what us bloody evangelicals believe?
Then you point to one fact: people who reject Christianity are raising the problems of PSA.
Do you seriously expect christian churches to base their doctrines on the issues raised by people who reject christianity? What else would we have to give up? Monotheism? Theism? Mainline churches are so good at rejecting every little bit of Christianity that might not be palatable to a secular society, and guess what, itīs not working.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Maltheism, pretty much a requirement of PSA taken to its logical conclusion, ought to repel anyone with a shred of decency.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Nothing will mate. Carrying on with projected Bronze Age psychosis certainly won't but if it were accompanied by incarnationality, I'd buy that for a dollar.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Do you seriously expect christian churches to base their doctrines on the issues raised by people who reject christianity?
No. Only to jettison unnecessary ideas that are harmful. The gospel is a stumbling block in and of itself; no need to bundle it with unnecessary stumbling blocks.
And if you say PSA is a necessary part of the gospel, you have just proved to be true what Mudfrog says isn't.
quote:
What else would we have to give up? Monotheism? Theism?
This is a bit shrill, don't you think?
quote:
Mainline churches are so good at rejecting every little bit of Christianity that might not be palatable to a secular society, and guess what, itīs not working.
So you're against basing doctrines on what is palatable to the unsaved, and yet you excoriate the mainline churches for not attracting the unsaved in sufficient number. I can't square that circle. Can you?
What appears to "work" best right now is the prosperity gospel. Which is heretical.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Kaplan, I am perfectly aware that St Vincent's observation was an ideal - Mousethief had already indicated as much too.
The point I was making was that however we cut it there is a basic core of Nicene creedal belief to which we all ostensibly adhere.
That doesn't stipulate which model of the atonement we should favour. But it does include the atonement.
The reason those of us who espouse some form of adherence to a PSA model isn't because we woke up one morning, opened our Bibles and thought, 'Aha!'
Rather it's because we have been heavily influenced by traditions that strongly espouse PSA or came to faith in such a tradition.
That's why we have difficulty understanding how other people don't see those verses in the same way. And because we don't understand that, we try to make out that they are deficient in some way - either they don't read the Bible properly - unlike us - or because they don't want to accept that they are sinners or in need of a Saviour or are trying to justify themselves by their own efforts or ...
You know how it goes as well as I do.
I agree with Mudfrog that there is some over the top objections to PASS - cosmic child abuse and so on.
But for the most part, that'd not what I see here. What I see here are people making a good fist of either stating their objections or reservations about PSA or else in all sincerity trying to defend it.
--------------------
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
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Do you seriously expect christian churches to base their doctrines on the issues raised by people who reject christianity?
No. Only to jettison unnecessary ideas that are harmful. The gospel is a stumbling block in and of itself; no need to bundle it with unnecessary stumbling blocks.
And if you say PSA is a necessary part of the gospel, you have just proved to be true what Mudfrog says isn't.
Rejecting biblical witness is a little bit more then "rejecting unnecessary ideas". Even atheist scholars of the new testament agree that the vicarious sacrifice of Chirst is well stated in the whole New Testament, and was the "mainline" version of the atonement in the new testament church.
As of it being harmful... Millions of people still believe it to this day and Iīm not aware of any of them suffering any harm. Many of them were converted under this from of Christianity and claim to be much happier persons now. Sure, there are a lot of people who strongly rejects it as "harmful", but they will say so of a lot of other christian beliefs, INCLUDING MONOTHEISM.
For example, there are a lot of liberal "christian" who state that John 14.6 equals "religious bigotry". There are not limits to hipersensibility.
quote:
What else would we have to give up? Monotheism? Theism?
This is a bit shrill, don't you think? [/quote]
No. It isnīt actually rare to find atheist clergy in mainline denominations. There is a denomination in Canada with a serious movement of atheist congregations and ministers. There is a lutheran bishop in scandinavia who has said belief in God is "optional" for christians. As our society becomes more and more secular, I suppose liberal theologians will get more and more uncomfortable with a belief in God. Theyīll rather reinterpret it as a metaphor or dismiss it altogether. Oh, and of course, rewrite christian history to make it look like only fundamentalists and evangelicals ever believed in a personal God.
quote:
quote:
Mainline churches are so good at rejecting every little bit of Christianity that might not be palatable to a secular society, and guess what, itīs not working.
So you're against basing doctrines on what is palatable to the unsaved, and yet you excoriate the mainline churches for not attracting the unsaved in sufficient number. I can't square that circle. Can you?
What appears to "work" best right now is the prosperity gospel. Which is heretical.
I was just pointing the fact that changing doctrines to appeal to the wider society doesnīt work. Secular people are not desperately seeking for churches that reflect their secular beliefs.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
cliffdweller quote:
PSA is, in fact, just one of several images, and therefore to be treated as a metaphor and not a transaction.
Forgive my ignorance, but could you explain what is meant by "a transaction"?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
gorpo for God's sake would you learn how to use the quote feature? "Preview Post" is good, too.
quote:
Rejecting biblical witness is a little bit more then "rejecting unnecessary ideas".
This is just question-begging. We are discussing whether or not something is ncessary. Saying "It's necessary therefore it's necessary" doesn't prove anything.
quote:
As of it being harmful... Millions of people still believe it to this day and Iīm not aware of any of them suffering any harm.
I didn't mean harm to the believers. I mean harm to people it drives away from Christ. Which was pretty obvious in what I said.
quote:
It isnīt actually rare to find atheist clergy in mainline denominations.
This is irrelevant. That's not what I was talking about and I think you know it.
quote:
I was just pointing the fact that changing doctrines to appeal to the wider society doesnīt work. Secular people are not desperately seeking for churches that reflect their secular beliefs.
You were "just" making a logically inconsistent demand. Here you are "just" not acknowledging my criticism of it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
cliffdweller quote:
PSA is, in fact, just one of several images, and therefore to be treated as a metaphor and not a transaction.
Forgive my ignorance, but could you explain what is meant by "a transaction"?
I'm thinking of transaction as a sort of consumerist exchange, like buying shoes-- I give you X and you give me Y. In this case, PSA is often (at least in my evangelical circles) described this bluntly-- Jesus gives his life and we get eternal life. It's very transactional and very literal-- without the nuance of metaphor or the depth of an act that is an expression of deep emotion (whether that be anger, grief or compassion). It's just a simple transition-- X for Z-- with no more nuance or emotion to it then handing over your debit card to the cashier. It's that sort of numbing down of the nuance and depth that I'm objecting to, and which I think exasperates the problems of PSA, which are much more surmountable if you think of it simply as one metaphor among many.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
]There seems to be a lot of mainline denominations where PSA is not popular at all. Why donīt these "PSA opponents" just make a good job in sharing their own particular version of the atonement and show people this God of love that us bloody evangelicals (and confessional protestants) hide them? Why donīt "PSA opponents" focus in their own problems instead of bothering what us bloody evangelicals believe?
Well, again, I am an evangelical so I'm not talking about "them", I'm talking about "us."
It actually seems to me like non-evangelical anti-PSA folks are doing precisely what you're suggesting. I haven't seen a lot of non-evangelicals hanging out in our churches trying to badger us into punting PSA. Where it comes up is usually on theonerd chat rooms like this, where we're inviting that sort of inter-denominational discussion, and among evangelicals themselves, where younger evangelicals are questioning our PSA-only emphasis as inconsistent with core evangelical principles themselves. iow, outside of the Ship, it is primarily evangelicals themselves who are raising the issues with evangelical PSA-emphasis, and doing so precisely because they are evangelicals and care about the disconnects in our theology. From best I can tell, non-evangelicals are pretty much happy to let us believe whatever we want (it's when we start screwing up elections they get steamed, but that's another thread...)
To that point:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Then you point to one fact: people who reject Christianity are raising the problems of PSA.
Do you seriously expect christian churches to base their doctrines on the issues raised by people who reject christianity? .
Well, again, it's not primarily non-Christians who are raising the objections, it's evangelicals. But I do think evangelicals in particular should care about whether we're communicating the gospel in ways that are intelligible, precisely because we are evangelicals. One of our four cornerstones-- four corners of the "quadrilateral"-- is supposed to be being evangelistic-- sharing the gospel. For us to share the gospel, it needs to be intelligible. When our theology is so convoluted and internally inconsistent that we have to start redefining terms like "wrath" then we have stopped to communicate much of anything.
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
What else would we have to give up? Monotheism? Theism? Mainline churches are so good at rejecting every little bit of Christianity that might not be palatable to a secular society, and guess what, itīs not working.
I don't think we're "supposed" to give up anything. No one is asking us to do anything. We are having a discussion on a theonerd chat room. And that discussion isn't about what evangelicals should or should not do, it is about what is true. And, interestingly, that discussion has primarily been framed in very very evangelical terms (although not exclusively so): i.e. what does the Bible say is true?
So yeah, I would agree-- Christianity should be and in fact IS distinctive. We have unique beliefs that can and should set us apart. The atonement, whether framed as PSA or Christus victor or ransom, IS unique and distinctive.
So no, no one here is suggesting we need to accommodate our beliefs to make non-Christians happy or conform to some larger cultural norm. What we are saying is we need to accommodate our beliefs to what is true-- which requires us to really look at what our central source of authority actually says with humility rather than stubborn dogmatism.
[ 15. January 2017, 23:49: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That doesn't stipulate which model of the atonement we should favour. But it does include the atonement.
Precisely.
As C.S. Lewis put it: "The central Christian belief is that Christ's death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this are another matter".
It is possible to believe, as I do, that PSA is the central and basic theory which makes most scriptural sense in understanding the atonement, while recognising that there are other, supplememntary aspects to it (such as Christus Victor), and while also recognising that those who disagree with it are not heretics, or unsaved, or pseudo-Christians.
What is essential is to recognise the fact of the atonement and to apprehend it personally
by faith.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I was replying to the point that the atonement had to be substitutionary and penal otherwise it must be worthless. I was giving an example of a sacrifice that was not meaningless but not penal or substitutionary.
No you weren't.
You were using a trivial example of the obvious fact that the term sacrifice can be used in many ways in different contexts, some of which don't require any penal or substitutionary element at all.
Other examples might include someone sacrificing nights out at the pub in order to save for a holiday, or a chess-player sacrificing a bishop to save a queen.
In the context of the Bible, however, ie sin, guilt, death, judgement, priesthood, the OT sacrificial system, etc., and the language of writers such as Paul and the author of Hebrews, a concept of sacrifice which includes a substitutionary and penal element is the only one which makes any sense of the term.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The New Testament contains much of what you dismiss as 'pseudo-mystical' waffle. (e.g. Rom 6:6-8, 'For we know that our old self was crucified with him' - not substitutionary in the slightest - 'But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him')
This passage is not remotely incompatible with PSA, any more than are Paul's other teachings which he draws from the crucifixion which don't make central its penal or substitutionary elements (eg "May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucfied to me, and I to the world" Gal. 6:14) - or for that matter with Christ's ("Anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me" Matt. 10:38).
quote:
God is under no obligation that God has not freely assumed.
Is this supposed to be some revolutionary theological insight?
What on earth is your point?
Who on earth is your imaginary opponent?
We are all agreed that God "freely assumed" (as he, by his nature, freely assumes everything he does) to save humanity by Christ's atoning death and resurrection, and are merely disagreeing on how to best understand how he did it.
[ 16. January 2017, 05:21: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
No you weren't.
You were using a trivial example of the obvious fact that the term sacrifice can be used in many ways in different contexts, some of which don't require any penal or substitutionary element at all.
Other examples might include someone sacrificing nights out at the pub in order to save for a holiday, or a chess-player sacrificing a bishop to save a queen.
I don't consider a men's life to be comparable to playing chess or saving money. Indeed, I reject the idea that my example is trivial. Of course the atonement has complex spiritual significance, but it is entirely possible to posit a theory of the atonement that is not substitutionary or penal, and which resembles a man stepping in front if a lorry to save humanity from itself.
quote:
In the context of the Bible, however, ie sin, guilt, death, judgement, priesthood, the OT sacrificial system, etc., and the language of writers such as Paul and the author of Hebrews, a concept of sacrifice which includes a substitutionary and penal element is the only one which makes any sense of the term.
Are you seriously suggesting that this must be the correct explanation because it is your opinion, therefore it must be?
Why are you not engaging - at all - with the posters who are saying the opposite.
Assertion is not argument.
[ 16. January 2017, 06:44: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Hmmm ...
If we say that it is the 'only' way to understand the atonement that fully makes sense if all the scriptural data and imagery, then aren't we in fact saying that those who do accept that to be the case are - if not outright heretics or some kind of pseudo-Christians - then at least deficient in their understanding n some way and need to adjust their thinking and approach in order to be just like us?
That's not going to go down very well with the Orthodox or with non-PSA Protestants any more than it would go down well with stringent PSA supporters if the boot were on the other foot and people were insisting that they drop it.
If we are part of a tradition which has taken a Kaplan / Mudfrog type view then we are bound to be vehement in its defence. Equally, if we come from a tradition where PSA has never been part of the landscape then we are bound to challenge or question the idea.
If we are in the middle somewhere, like Cliffdweller and others then we will look to retain elements of PSA whilst questioning or reframing those aspects we no longer feel are adequate.
That doesn't imply bad faith on either side.
I have some sympathy with Mudfrog's view that some more Kerymanic contribution with chapter and verse might help - but for all the noise I think we have seen some alternative interpretations or understandings put forward. MT has indicated another way of understanding Isaiah 53, for instance.
The thing I can't get away from is the extent to which our tradition shapes and determines our response.
To someone strongly committed to PSA no objection or alternative insight is going to sway them. The same is true in reverse, of course.
For my money, I think we're seeing examples of intransigence on both sides.
I have to say, I found MT's rebuttal of that bloke on Ancient Faith radio to be rather scoffing and dismissive. Whereas on the site itself I find Orthodox, including clergy, engaging respectfully with the guy's contribution and assessing the extent to which it resonates with their own understanding or with Tradition as they see it.
The 'as they see it' is the operative phrase there and may raise the spectre of personal choice or 'Protestant' approaches for some - but to all intents and purposes we are all saying 'This is how I read it, how does it seem to you?' within the context and framework of one tradition or other.
The issue is in the elasticity of our frameworks.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
