|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Moral Influence atonement theology
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm reminded of something I read in an account of a former US Episcopalian of their journey into Orthodoxy. She was chatting with an Orthodox bishop shortly after being received and, unfamiliar with certain aspects of Protestantism he asked her about it. In the course of the conversation she mentioned the evangelical understanding of PSA.
The bishop raised an eyebrow in some surprise, 'Really? Is that what they believe?'
He went on to say that he could see where they got the idea from in terms of certain scriptures and conceded that 'there might be an element of that there' but felt that they might be over-stating their case or putting too strong a slant on certain passages and jumping to the wrong conclusions.
Now, I'm not using that as an example to attack or defend any particular stance, rather, I cite it to show how we all tend to operate.
We react with surprise when we find out that other people understand things differently to ourselves, particular if we hold those things to be 'self-evident' as it were ...
We then reflect and think, 'Ok, I think I get that to some extent ...' after which we either modify our own position - 'there might be an element of that there, I've never thought about it that way before, but come to think of it ...' and make an adjustment before concluding, 'Well, there might be some truth in that but they've pushed it too far ...'
Or else, we say, 'Well, I never, I hadn't clocked that before, I think I'm going to have to adjust or abandon my own position in the light of this ...'
Or we settle at various stages in between.
It's interesting that the bishop didn't say, 'Phoo-ey! Do they believe that? Don't make me laugh! Pull the other one ...'
Or, 'They believe that do they? Heretics! Apostates! Reprobates!'
But he was surprised when he heard what they did believe.
Which tells us something. That it's perfectly possible to interpret these things in a different way. He had. He did. His Church had and did.
Ok, that might cut much ice for those who imagine that it's physically possible for us to go 'by the plain-meaning of scripture' and take a completely Sola Scriptura approach.
But even if we were able to take such an approach - and yes, I know that Sola Scriptura is not Solo Scriptura - it'd be perfectly possible to arrive at an alternative scenario for understanding the atonement than that espoused by evangelicals.
Darnn-darrnn-Narrnnnn!!
Waits for the sky to fall in ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
As always we're on a liberal-conservative continuum of disposition. I've been moved from the fundamentalist far right to the postmodern far left and there's nowt I can do about that. I see PSA clearly in the texts and the mind of Jesus (ooh, something nobody picked me up on! *) and know in every neuron of my being now that that Bronze Age - Classical narrative is completely ours, not God's.
The propaganda of the deed narrative of Jesus IS His. * talking of Whom, way up stream I was robustly orthodox in saying that the son of man son of God was NOT God the Son.
Is there a problem there?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
The feature that most troubles me in this thread isn't actually the various different explanations of the atonement. As I've said earlier, this is much bigger than any of us. No, what troubles me more is the tendency some of us have of wanting to reject those parts of anyone's explanations which we don't like, not because they aren't in scripture, but rather, just because we don't happen to like them.
The various explanations are cumulative, not alternative. I've already explained, earlier in the thread, why I don't think moral influence is adequate as anyone's foundation understanding. But if on that ground one rejects it altogether, one removes the connection between the cross and Christian ethics.
To what extent, though, do the various analogies
I once encountered an article by a Quaker. He took the line that, as a Quaker, he had to be committed to a theological interpretation that was wholly non-violent. That is to say, that if scripture, tradition or the realities of human nature got in the way of that aspiration, non-violence would have to prevail, because God has to be non-violent - whether he actually is or not.
It isn't only certain sorts of Neo-Calvinists and Neo-Thomists who can take the line of insisting that God fits in with their theology rather than letting God be God on his own terms, irrespective of where he take us.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The feature that most troubles me in this thread isn't actually the various different explanations of the atonement. As I've said earlier, this is much bigger than any of us. No, what troubles me more is the tendency some of us have of wanting to reject those parts of anyone's explanations which we don't like, not because they aren't in scripture, but rather, just because we don't happen to like them.
The various explanations are cumulative, not alternative. I've already explained, earlier in the thread, why I don't think moral influence is adequate as anyone's foundation understanding. But if on that ground one rejects it altogether, one removes the connection between the cross and Christian ethics.
I don't see why it should trouble you, it is hardly a novel idea: some theories about philosophy and theology are just wrong.
I don't think the "various explanations are cumulative", I think some are just plain wrong.
Which is fine, of course, wrong ideas exist widely in the wild and you are fully entitled to believe something I believe is total humbug. You don't need my approval and I don't need yours.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
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).
The question isn't whether they are compatible with PSA. (As it happens I think the passage I quoted, and indeed the passages you quote, are not compatible with a PSA reading. If Paul is crucified to the world then Jesus' crucifixion was not a substitute for Paul's crucifixion.)
The question is whether or not they are instances of what you call 'pseudo-mystical waffle'.
quote:
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?
Maybe if you read the sentence you quote in context you might find a clue to the answers to your questions.
Clue: 'God is under no obligation that God has not freely assumed' is supposed to be a premise that you and I share.
[ 16. January 2017, 13:31: 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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The feature that most troubles me in this thread isn't actually the various different explanations of the atonement. As I've said earlier, this is much bigger than any of us. No, what troubles me more is the tendency some of us have of wanting to reject those parts of anyone's explanations which we don't like, not because they aren't in scripture, but rather, just because we don't happen to like them.
The various explanations are cumulative, not alternative. I've already explained, earlier in the thread, why I don't think moral influence is adequate as anyone's foundation understanding. But if on that ground one rejects it altogether, one removes the connection between the cross and Christian ethics.
To what extent, though, do the various analogies
I once encountered an article by a Quaker. He took the line that, as a Quaker, he had to be committed to a theological interpretation that was wholly non-violent. That is to say, that if scripture, tradition or the realities of human nature got in the way of that aspiration, non-violence would have to prevail, because God has to be non-violent - whether he actually is or not.
It isn't only certain sorts of Neo-Calvinists and Neo-Thomists who can take the line of insisting that God fits in with their theology rather than letting God be God on his own terms, irrespective of where he take us.
I think there's a great deal of truth to this, but tend to see even this tendency as a mixed bag.
On the one hand, yes, we should be about seeking truth, not about defending an ideology. Gamaliel's beautiful story above about the Orthodox priest (and his thoughtful parsing of it) is instructive, I think (and what I hope to do for my theology students).
otoh, we do read Scripture thru a lens, and I want that lens to be Jesus. Arguably, the purpose (or one purpose) of the incarnation is to show us God. Scripture is there to reveal God to us, but we need more and that's why we have Jesus who tells us if we have seen him, we've seen the Father. And that's important. So I think it's not only OK but vital that we assess our interpretations of Scripture thru the lens of what has been revealed to us in Christ. If our theory of the atonement or anything else yields a picture of God at odds with what we see in Jesus, we have very good reason to question it.
This goes to what I was saying before re the damage that PSA does to our view of the Trinity. PSA (when taken alone as a transaction, rather than as one of several metaphors) tends to create a biforcation in the members of the Trinity-- with Jesus the gracious and loving one placating the angry and wrathful Father. Jesus is moving towards us in love because the Father is moving away from us in anger or disgust. That's a pretty significant disconnect. The "Satanward" theories, otoh, present a more unified picture of the Trinity and therefore of the heart of God that is with and for us, rescuing 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 Gamaliel:
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.
You don't live with blokes like this week in and week out, and see the change they are wreaking on our ancient faith, and see how they are hitching the star of Orthodoxy to the far end of excess, hate, and bigotry to be found under the Protestant tent. These culture warriors would sell out our birthright for the mess of pottage that is gained by being thought "on the right side" by homophobes and sexists and racists and other Trump fellators. This guy is another brick in that wall.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The feature that most troubles me in this thread isn't actually the various different explanations of the atonement. As I've said earlier, this is much bigger than any of us. No, what troubles me more is the tendency some of us have of wanting to reject those parts of anyone's explanations which we don't like, not because they aren't in scripture, but rather, just because we don't happen to like them.
I haven't noticed a lot of that. Most people who are rejecting part or all of another person's theology have reasons that at least seem cogent to them beyond "I just don't like it."
quote:
Originally posted by clifdweller:
otoh, we do read Scripture thru a lens, and I want that lens to be Jesus.
Yes. This.
quote:
Arguably, the purpose (or one purpose) of the incarnation is to show us God.
A purpose, yes. THE purpose, no. The purpose of the incarnation, at base, is to reconcile man to God by destroying the power of death and uniting the two natures. There are many other purposes it accomplishes and they are not nothing. But the main purpose is the atonement.
quote:
If our theory of the atonement or anything else yields a picture of God at odds with what we see in Jesus, we have very good reason to question it.
Yes. This also.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
... otoh, we do read Scripture thru a lens, and I want that lens to be Jesus. ....
I agree, but we also have the limitation that the lenses we all start with are out own spectacles.
Those who advocate moral influence as their favourite theory, tend to be those who wish to demythologise. The thought that the Cross might have objective ontological consequences seriously upsets their cosmology. That is also the reason why others are suspicious of moral influence.
To what extent therefore does PSA perhaps speak more conversionally to people whose psyche is haunted by a particularly authoritarian model of patriarchy. It would be understandable that it might resonate with the typical picture go God of the late medieval and early modern period, or for those who see him as rather like a C19 Headmaster.
Did Christus Victor not cut quite the same mustard for generations who no longer felt they shared their universe with terrifying demigods and demons, the time when people no longer feared the old gods? What would have been conversional amidst the superstitious terrors of the provincial Roman Empire might have had rather less to say to the spiritual anxieties of a C15 East Anglian merchant's wife.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok, MT, I don't know the back-to-back and don't know that guy from Adam, so I have no idea whether he is doing unhygienic things to the President elect ...
All I had to go on was what he posted on that site, which I found interesting as it was obviously closer to the way 'beyond' understood things as a Western Christian who has been deeply immersed in evangelicalism.
Besides, whilst I am aware that there are some right-wing evangelical jerks who have crossed the Bosphorus in recent years, it strikes me that there are plenty of nutters there already who are waiting to receive them. Call me over-sensitive if you like, but the nefarious and delinquent West can't be blamed for all the ills on the opposite bank. It seems to me you've already got enough fruit-cakes of your own. Not that you've ever tried to deny that or play it down, of course, nor have any of the Orthodox I know.
I can understand your distaste, but I s'pose the Anglican, several steps removed part of me was expecting you to say, 'Yes, interesting points, I agreed with this, that and the other but what he doesn't address properly is X, Y and Z ...'
But then, I could imagine situations where I might react as you did if the boot was in the other foot. But there we are ...
--------------------
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
Yes I realize we have our own home-grown nutjobs. They are a siren song to the imported nutjobs. They together make the church about fighting the culture wars rather than about achieving theosis for its members. Our home-growns don't need any more hope or encouragement. They need to be slapped down by our hierarchy, who are themselves caught up in the cultural wars for various savory and unsavory reasons. Making the rest of us all the more chary of converts with anything that smacks of cultural or theological baggage.
I fear we are speeding toward a point that will either result in schism, or a new Mark of Ephesus standing up and telling the hierarchs to fucking knock it off. Every time we the floor warmers hear a sermon about the cultural wars, we need to ask "Yes but how does that help ME achieve theosis?" Sermons about sins (if sins they be) that the vast majority of us are not tempted to are not salvific; they're self-congratulatory.
THIS is the context into which Protestant-lite attempts to redefine the faith are currently falling.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
hosting
Hi there,
this is not a Dead Horse on these boards. The only Dead Horse subjects are 'biblical inerrancy, homosexuality, the role of women in church and Christian households, creation and evolution, abortion, closed communion and bitching about church music. ' Please remember when starting a DH thread to check the guidelines before posting because only the topics in the guidelines qualify.
I'm moving this to Purgatory, apologies for the delay.
cheers,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
I apologize - for some reason I was certain PSA was a dead horse, and figured (correctly, it seems) that this would stray in that direction. Thank you for moving it where it belongs.
Also, my sincere apologies to everyone here - I completely forgot that I started this thread. So much to read now!!! But there's been such great discussion.
I'm wary of jumping in, as I've read several pages but only glanced at several others.
I do think a major issue with Atonement theology is one's understanding of what justice is. There seems to be a huge assumption in our world that justice = punishment; that somehow if an offender is punished for their crime, that sets the world right. Of course, it doesn't. One could argue, in fact, that it only adds more evil (the punishment) to the world. If I steal your money, and the state locks me up, how does that help you with your missing money? And of course, even the death penalty for a murderer doesn't bring their victim back.
I really think that punishing crime is a very human concept of "justice," and not a divine one at all. But then again, only God has the ability to set the world right. But I think even we should be striving toward that - a reconciliation model of justice, rather than mere retribution. Restorative justice is what I really want, personally. We can only get there imperfectly on earth, but I have faith that God will get us there somehow, someday.
The other major premise in thinking about atonement is, as many have pointed out here, how one states the problem. The PSA model is actually built on St. Anselm's work (though it's not what Anselm put forward). He was bothered by the idea that atonement was always put in terms of paying the devil for our release. He thought it unjust (there's that word again) that the devil should have any rights to payment for what he stole in the first place. So he reconfigured the problem, basing his sense of justice on the feudal model of his own day (much like we often go with the penal model of our day). His theory is actually somewhat aesthetic: He's concerned with the "fittingness" of God's good/beautiful creation going to naught: thus the "fall," or sin, or the brokenness of our world, is God's problem. God has to find a way to fix this, or God's work will be lost - and that is not "fitting." He takes what we might consider a penal aspect - what it would take to restore the order of creation - from feudal ideas. An offense was greater if it was committed against someone higher in the hierarchy - again, because it was a more direct assault against the very order of things. So in the hierarchy of all that is, God is clearly at the top. Therefore, any offense against God (e.g., eating fruit God said not to eat) is an affront against the whole created order, and in fact, against the uncreated God. It's an offense against everything.
While some of the elements of hierarchical thinking still plague us, most of us don't accept that the cosmos is really ordered that way, so Anselm's idea has morphed as our worldview has. It's been translated into the idea that a crime against God is a crime against God's dignity; Anselm's view was more like the idea that a crime against a sovereign is not against the sovereign personally, but against the whole realm that they stand for.
So Anselm figured that in order to set things aright, human beings had to make restitution. But we can't, because we're too impoverished in our sinfulness; only God could set things right. His work was titled Cur Deus Homo - "Why the God-Man?" or, as it's more often translated, "Why God became Man." But his idea was that only a God-Man could restore the balance and beauty of the cosmos.
It's easy to see how that would pick up penal and transactional elements, but in my reading, he uses those more as metaphors.
So then Peter Abelard, his rough contemporary, posited the moral influence theory. He was bothered by Anselm's ideas primarily because he figured the cosmos couldn't be set right by a new crime being committed: the crucifixion, which is a crime against a human being AND in the case of Jesus, is also a crime against God. How could humanity be restored to relationship with God by killing God's Son? And how would adding another evil to the world balance out other evils? But I've never fully understood the positive portion of his arguments - what he's for, rather than what he's against. This thread has been helpful in getting a bit of a grasp on why one would posit the moral influence theory - and it does still seem to be somewhat of a reaction against other theories which one finds morally reprehensible. (I don't think that's dismissing it as mushy, though - I think too many imply that the truth of something lies in how much it makes us squirm, and that's, well, an assumption that usually goes undefended.)
We're still having this debate! Which probably means we need more models, not fewer.
I think ultimately, our models are metaphors. Paul mixes his metaphors; but as some scholars have argued, apparently that was considered a plus for a rhetorician at the time. The best example of his mixed metaphors, which can't be resolved if you want to be literal, is when he refers to Christ as a scapegoat and also as a sacrifice to God. Ancient Israelites would never have sacrificed the scapegoat to God; it was sent into the wilderness, bearing their sins - because the wilderness was the abode of demons. Sacrifices to God were unblemished and pure. You can't literally reconcile those images, but you can take them as a mixed metaphor, which taken together, express more of the fullness of what we experience in coming to Christ.
Frankly, what God experiences in procuring our salvation is something we can only guess at.
Personally, I favor something more like a sickness/healing model. To my mind, the problem atonement is aimed at is not entirely dissimilar to what Anselm saw, but not quite the same. I think our problem is that we're creatures. Anything that is not God falls short of perfection and is mortal; it eventually becomes nothing. But that's not what God created us for; God created the cosmos in order to dwell in it. I think the Incarnation was the whole point of creation, and it is what saves us, because it joins the divine nature to the created nature, infusing immortality into creation (us).
Which might seem to bypass the Cross. I could probably write a dissertation on that (but I'm writing one on something else, as it happens)... suffice it to say, it's not a simple dismissal. As an Episcopalian, I wrestle in part because of the centrality of the Cross in the liturgy.
But that's for another thread, perhaps. Or at least another day.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
I do think a major issue with Atonement theology is one's understanding of what justice is.
Or whether atonement is about justice at all.
--------------------
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 cliffdweller:
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.
And if what you are calling a "penalty" might include an element of punishment (despite the shared etymology, I think in English "penalty" has broader meaning than "penal"), and if you're prepared to grant that if it did, then Jesus took that punishment, then you have PSA - or something very like it.
It doesn't need to be the main or only theory (I'd argue that it shouldn't be), but it is one of several legitimate perspectives of what Christ has done for us: ransomed us, discharged us from debt, liberated us from captivity, healed our infirmities, united us with him in his death and resurrection, and taken our punishment. Not every way of seeing it resonates with everyone - I don't think that's a problem.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Those last three posts seem to recapitulate this three and a half thousand year accumulative, synergistic, dialectical, progressive revelation nicely. The word explains itself. At-one-ment.
Wherever we're at, whichever Jesus specs we wear, we have it. Thanks be to Him.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
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.
And if what you are calling a "penalty" might include an element of punishment (despite the shared etymology, I think in English "penalty" has broader meaning than "penal"), and if you're prepared to grant that if it did, then Jesus took that punishment, then you have PSA - or something very like it..
No-- you only get PSA if the penalty is paid/owed to God. If the penalty is owed/paid to Satan you've got either ransom or CV. And that's really the point at which the objections to PSA hinge-- not on whether or not there is a price to be paid for sin, but rather who the price is paid to. Because the two different paradigms (Godward or Satanward) yield very, very different views of God and God's disposition toward sinners.
--------------------
"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 churchgeek:
I think ultimately, our models are metaphors.
They have to be. Particularly because none of them "works" completely. They all fall short in one or another area. I think it's instructive that Jesus primarily taught in similes. "The Kingdom of God is like ...." and then a story. The atonement is like each of these models, in certain ways, and very much unlike each of these models in other ways.
quote:
Personally, I favor something more like a sickness/healing model.
Yay! Victory for the Orthodox position. I claim my £5.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
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.
If you say rather that none of the models discharge sins without a cost, I could go there. But by saying "penalty" you are dragging in the whole judicial metaphor through the back door. If I buy my son a brand-new BMW, there is a high cost, but the price of the car is not a penalty I pay for not having had it before.
--------------------
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 cliffdweller:
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.
If you say rather that none of the models discharge sins without a cost, I could go there. But by saying "penalty" you are dragging in the whole judicial metaphor through the back door. If I buy my son a brand-new BMW, there is a high cost, but the price of the car is not a penalty I pay for not having had it before.
fair 'nuff.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
I'm not happy with atonement as either 'price paid to God' or 'price paid to Satan' (because surely His Infernal Majesty can't actually be owed anything - on his part it is all "He Owes because of his own sins"!!)
Yes, the price/cost/bill for our sin is owed to God by us as sinners. But if we can't afford to pay, and God wants to forgive us, the only way it can work is that the price is paid BY God.
Jesus' death constitutes both the part of that payment that can be represented on earth, and God's declaration that he is willing to pay, and the challenge to us whether we will recognise/acknowledge the debt so that we can be forgiven, or insist, in effect, on refusing forgiveness and choosing rejection of God and 'darkness'.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm not happy with atonement as either 'price paid to God' or 'price paid to Satan' (because surely His Infernal Majesty can't actually be owed anything - on his part it is all "He Owes because of his own sins"!!)
Yes, the price/cost/bill for our sin is owed to God by us as sinners. But if we can't afford to pay, and God wants to forgive us, the only way it can work is that the price is paid BY God.
Seems you want to eat your cake and have it. How can there be a price owed to God, that gets paid (whoever by), without a price being paid to God? It's just a natural conclusion given what the words mean.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Mousethief;
quote:
How can there be a price owed to God, that gets paid (whoever by), without a price being paid to God? It's just a natural conclusion given what the words mean.
Because that's how forgiveness works. Consider the simple case where some yob chucks a brick through your window. He now owes you - and should pay - the price of a new window. If you decide to forgive, the price is borne by you, the owner of the broken window; you foot the bill for the window so the guilty party doesn't. Simples!!
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Mousethief;
quote:
How can there be a price owed to God, that gets paid (whoever by), without a price being paid to God? It's just a natural conclusion given what the words mean.
Because that's how forgiveness works. Consider the simple case where some yob chucks a brick through your window. He now owes you - and should pay - the price of a new window. If you decide to forgive, the price is borne by you, the owner of the broken window; you foot the bill for the window so the guilty party doesn't. Simples!!
YOu appear to have missed the point of my question. Let me try again:
You claim
(a) a price is owed to God
(b) God pays the price
but
(c) God is not paid.
These three sentences are mutually inconsistent. They can't all three be true at the same time, because Logic.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
This goes to what I was saying before re the damage that PSA does to our view of the Trinity. PSA (when taken alone as a transaction, rather than as one of several metaphors) tends to create a biforcation in the members of the Trinity-- with Jesus the gracious and loving one placating the angry and wrathful Father. Jesus is moving towards us in love because the Father is moving away from us in anger or disgust.
That is a travesty, exposing the crudest and falsest understanding of both PSA and the Trinity.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The question is whether or not they are instances of what you call 'pseudo-mystical waffle'.
"Pseudo-mystical waffle" is not using Christ's PSA-based atoning death to illustrate other spiritual truths.
"Pseudo-mystical waffle" is what it is necessary to resort to when trying to pretend, against Scripture and common sense, that Christ's death has saving efficacy in the absence of any penal or substitutionary content.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
This goes to what I was saying before re the damage that PSA does to our view of the Trinity. PSA (when taken alone as a transaction, rather than as one of several metaphors) tends to create a biforcation in the members of the Trinity-- with Jesus the gracious and loving one placating the angry and wrathful Father. Jesus is moving towards us in love because the Father is moving away from us in anger or disgust.
That is a travesty, exposing the crudest and falsest understanding of both PSA and the Trinity.
Well, yes, you have said that several times but have yet to show how PSA, when taken transactionally as I was discussing in the above (from context), is anything but that. Just saying "that's false!" doesn't really do much when, to the average reader, talking about "God's wrath" sounds a whole lot like... well, wrath.
Of course, as I said then and several other times, taken as metaphor that's not at all what it means, which is why most of us here have no problem with PSA as one of several metaphors for the atonement.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
@KC: Stamping your feet and saying that everyone would agree with you if only they understood properly what you meant and read the Bible as carefully as you do isn't doing your argument any favours.
[ 17. January 2017, 05:36: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Because that's how forgiveness works. Consider the simple case where some yob chucks a brick through your window. He now owes you - and should pay - the price of a new window. If you decide to forgive, the price is borne by you, the owner of the broken window; you foot the bill for the window so the guilty party doesn't. Simples!!
Please explain this slowly for those of us who have not reached the spiritual/mathematic heights.
You are playing football and kick a ball through my greenhouse.
The cost of repair is £50. You don't have £50 so write me an apology saying how sorry you are and that you can't pay.
I say fine, I'll pay. I have £50.
Who exactly am I giving the £50 to? The exchange of £50 from my wallet to you so that you can give it back to me is an entirely pointless transaction, isn't it?
A far simpler and more straightforward idea is that I recognise you don't have £50, that I judge that you are an honest person and that I decide not to hang the £50 debt over your head.
I have a net loss of £50 - not somehow the original £50 damage plus another £50 that I've given to/for you to give back to me for the damage.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm not happy with atonement as either 'price paid to God' or 'price paid to Satan' (because surely His Infernal Majesty can't actually be owed anything - on his part it is all "He Owes because of his own sins"!!)
Yes, the price/cost/bill for our sin is owed to God by us as sinners. But if we can't afford to pay, and God wants to forgive us, the only way it can work is that the price is paid BY God.
As above, this explanation fails on purely logical grounds. Even if the debt it owed to God, there is no requirement to have him pay it. In fact if you instist that God is required to pay - rather than release the debtor - you are actually saying that the debt is owed to someone else.
The atonement is not a transaction between parties who have a contract which forces them to act. There is no ransom to pay to Satan, there is no obligation to pay to God.
What there is is a whole bunch of messed up humans and the God we see in Jesus Christ who looks, and loves, and wants to heal. Not because he has to. Not because it is his job. Not because there is an inalterable contract which must be paid in the most illogical way possible. But because, strange as it may seem, God is for us not against us and is excitedly waiting for us to turn back so he can begin to heal us and continue with the process of healing all things.
quote:
Jesus' death constitutes both the part of that payment that can be represented on earth, and God's declaration that he is willing to pay, and the challenge to us whether we will recognise/acknowledge the debt so that we can be forgiven, or insist, in effect, on refusing forgiveness and choosing rejection of God and 'darkness'.
I'm not sure you really understand how debt works anyway, do you?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Mousethief;
quote:
How can there be a price owed to God, that gets paid (whoever by), without a price being paid to God? It's just a natural conclusion given what the words mean.
Because that's how forgiveness works. Consider the simple case where some yob chucks a brick through your window. He now owes you - and should pay - the price of a new window. If you decide to forgive, the price is borne by you, the owner of the broken window; you foot the bill for the window so the guilty party doesn't. Simples!!
This almost has legs, actually, as a metaphor. But perhaps let us say that God accepts a broken window as the price of not holding the payment against the thrower for ever.
Those dear tokens of his passion
still his dazzling body bears,
cause of endless exultation
to his ransomed worshippers;
with what rapture,
gaze we on those glorious scars!
[ 17. January 2017, 09:04: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Mousethief;
quote:
How can there be a price owed to God, that gets paid (whoever by), without a price being paid to God? It's just a natural conclusion given what the words mean.
Because that's how forgiveness works. Consider the simple case where some yob chucks a brick through your window. He now owes you - and should pay - the price of a new window. If you decide to forgive, the price is borne by you, the owner of the broken window; you foot the bill for the window so the guilty party doesn't. Simples!!
It works like that on a human level. I wonder though if it makes sense beyond that level. Considering Christ's death as the price of sin on a human level lowers the value of the transaction. Somehow, you have to consider the alternative to Christ dying. ie if he does not die, we are eternally, spiritually lost.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
This is basically the fault line;
All the windows in a street are broken.
PSA says that God must seek out, find and punish the window-breakers. When he has them by the ear and they admit to breaking windows and admit that they owe him for the cost, he opens his wallet and gives them the money.. which they owe him.
Ramsom says that it was the devil wot made us break windows and God is graciously coming along and offering Satan a payment which releases the captives both from the cost of repairing the windows and from the window-breaking mafia charge he has over us.
MI says that God sees the broken windows and is already working to put things right, that he calls each of us change our ways and get involved in window repair - and that he himself has come down to do the repairs and got crucified for it. This is supposed to encourage us to follow.
CV says that this world is a mess and that the window breaking is a symptom but that God has the power to turn things around and that this is shown by Christ's life, death and resurrection.
Or something.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
But the windows were installed broken!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by mr cheesy;
quote:
Even if the debt it owed to God, there is no requirement to have him pay it
Obviously. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
There is no 'requirement' upon God that forces him to foot a bill that we ought to take responsibility for - but unfortunately we can't afford it.
The 'requirement' is in the fact that the 'debt' or as Lamb Chopped has put it, the consequences of our sin, does actually concretely exist and must be dealt with. Justice says it ought to fall on the person who caused it; forgiveness says "I love you so I'll foot the bill". But forgiveness can never be a 'requirement' that the forgiver can be forced to do. Forgiveness, because it is costly, can only be an act of undeserved grace. That is how debt works....
And to translate the willingness to forgive into full reconciliation requires the further point that the wrongdoer admits his wrong and accepts the forgiveness - the 'footing of the bill' is only part of the 'at-one-ment' involved.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The question is whether or not they are instances of what you call 'pseudo-mystical waffle'.
"Pseudo-mystical waffle" is not using Christ's PSA-based atoning death to illustrate other spiritual truths.
"Pseudo-mystical waffle" is what it is necessary to resort to when trying to pretend, against Scripture and common sense, that Christ's death has saving efficacy in the absence of any penal or substitutionary content.
That's not in dispute. (Apart from the implication that PSA is in Scripture. Which it is not.)
What is in dispute is whether adding penal or substitutionary content makes things any less pseudo-mystical waffle.
Just because you use the words 'penal' and 'substitutionary' does not mean you have avoided pseudo-mystical waffle. The words do not have that magical power.
The fact which you have explicitly acknowledged in other contexts is that penal substitution is unjust. You cannot justly punish an innocent substitute. Even if that innocent is the judge themselves. The only way you can make it out that justice or holiness are satisfied by the punishment of an innocent person is by invoking pseudo-mystical waffle. The only way you can make it out that holiness needs to be satisfied or that justice needs to be satisfied by punishment are by pseudo-mystical waffle.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Obviously.
There is no 'requirement' upon God that forces him to foot a bill that we ought to take responsibility for - but unfortunately we can't afford it.
Go back and read that again. PSA says that there is a cost of sin to God and that someone must pay it, even if that is God himself.
That's like the person giving you £50 to give back to him to pay for the greenhouse.
quote:
The 'requirement' is in the fact that the 'debt' or as Lamb Chopped has put it, the consequences of our sin, does actually concretely exist and must be dealt with. Justice says it ought to fall on the person who caused it; forgiveness says "I love you so I'll foot the bill". But forgiveness can never be a 'requirement' that the forgiver can be forced to do. Forgiveness, because it is costly, can only be an act of undeserved grace. That is how debt works....
The critical point you're just not getting is that God is the owner of the greenhouse. Justice may well say that you should pay for the damage you've caused, that's not in dispute.
But what clearly makes no sense is to say that the only way the greenhouse owner gets his window repaired is if he gives you money to give back to him to pay for it.
quote:
And to translate the willingness to forgive into full reconciliation requires the further point that the wrongdoer admits his wrong and accepts the forgiveness - the 'footing of the bill' is only part of the 'at-one-ment' involved.
Not sure this is particularly unique to PSA, is it?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by mr cheesy;
quote:
The critical point you're just not getting is that God is the owner of the greenhouse. Justice may well say that you should pay for the damage you've caused, that's not in dispute.
But what clearly makes no sense is to say that the only way the greenhouse owner gets his window repaired is if he gives you money to give back to him to pay for it.
Not what I'm saying. It's not "God gives me money to give back to him"; it's simply that God foots the bill instead of me - like the way a creditor loses out if he forgives the debtor.
I'm NOT advocating PSA; the most I'm saying about that is that there are 'penal substitution' situations in human legal systems (and more so in ancient times than now) which provide useful partial analogies for the atonement.
And the bit about more being needed for full reconciliation than the 'forgiveness of debt', no that's not unique to PSA - I never said that was unique either to PSA or other schemes of atonement. In the NT God uses all kinds of analogies from human situations to explain the atonement; pretty much all of them fall down at some point. What I'm saying is that the basic idea of "We owe God because of our sins - and he graciously forgives the debt" is one of the most useful of these analogies and closest to what is basically happening.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
OK my bad, I thought you were trying to use this illustration to explain PSA.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
Even if the debt it owed to God, there is no requirement to have him pay it
Obviously.
There is no 'requirement' upon God that forces him to foot a bill that we ought to take responsibility for - but unfortunately we can't afford it.
The 'requirement' is in the fact that the 'debt' or as Lamb Chopped has put it, the consequences of our sin, does actually concretely exist and must be dealt with. Justice says it ought to fall on the person who caused it; forgiveness says "I love you so I'll foot the bill". But forgiveness can never be a 'requirement' that the forgiver can be forced to do. Forgiveness, because it is costly, can only be an act of undeserved grace. That is how debt works....
And to translate the willingness to forgive into full reconciliation requires the further point that the wrongdoer admits his wrong and accepts the forgiveness - the 'footing of the bill' is only part of the 'at-one-ment' involved.
Interesting article. ISTM that the key word is mystery.
JI Packer
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I get told off sometimes when I use the word 'mystery' here aboard Ship ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Dafyd. It is. So what?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What is in dispute is whether adding penal or substitutionary content makes things any less pseudo-mystical waffle.
No, what is in dispute is how Christ's death in itself saves us without any penal or substitutionary significance to it.
Compared with trying to square that circle (especially in view of all the scriptural support for PSA) any problems which PSA might raise fade into insignificance.
quote:
You cannot justly punish an innocent substitute. Even if that innocent is the judge themselves.
According to God, you can in the case of the second person of the Godhead freely choosing to assume guilt, and God's choosing to accept his sacrifice.
Take it up with God.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Back to the Trinity story again then. The man Jesus WAS the entirity of God the Son? One and the same? The Second Person of the Godhead collapsed in to a Holy Spirit fertilized ovum? Either preempted the emergent human person as the ultimate cuckoo's egg hatchling or became a perichoresis with that human person? That heresy? Rather than the orthodoxy of a perichoresis of natures? Whatever they are?
Before we get to the other fictions of sin and sacrifice and redemption, crime and justice and punishment.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
According to God, you can in the case of the second person of the Godhead freely choosing to assume guilt, and God's choosing to accept his sacrifice.
Take it up with God.
As C.S. Lewis observed in a different context, you do not turn nonsense into sense by putting the words 'God can' in front of it. The point applies here.
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What is in dispute is whether adding penal or substitutionary content makes things any less pseudo-mystical waffle.
No, what is in dispute is how Christ's death in itself saves us without any penal or substitutionary significance to it. ...
I think the 'problem' is better stated the other way round.
The death and resurrection of Christ saves us, really, ontologically, and cosmologically.
It happened. However, a lot of us find it difficult really to believe it, or to believe that it works for us, rather than for someone else.
Which of the various ways of trying to explain how and why, best enable people to grasp it, receive it, give thanks and respond?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Which of the various ways of trying to explain how and why, best enable people to grasp it, receive it, give thanks and respond?
Great way to put it.
--------------------
"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
@Enoch. Nope. That's the false dichotomy again. That Jesus' death is a legal transaction in any way. It is part of the proof in His life from conception to resurrection, the entire incarnation, that our lives have meaning and are redeemable, we can start again, prior to death. Yes His faithful, submissive death was the price of that essential demonstration, that breaking through. Everything else is stuff we make up.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What is in dispute is whether adding penal or substitutionary content makes things any less pseudo-mystical waffle.
No, what is in dispute is how Christ's death in itself saves us without any penal or substitutionary significance to it.
Compared with trying to square that circle (especially in view of all the scriptural support for PSA) any problems which PSA might raise fade into insignificance.
quote:
You cannot justly punish an innocent substitute. Even if that innocent is the judge themselves.
According to God, you can in the case of the second person of the Godhead freely choosing to assume guilt, and God's choosing to accept his sacrifice.
Take it up with God.
This sounds all very well and good until we consider:
- That some Christian traditions have for centuries considered that Christ's atoning death and glorious resurrection are salvific without understanding it in a penal sense.
Take that up with them.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
- That the way things seem 'obvious' or clear to us from our perspective / reading of scripture isn't necessarily clear or obvious to other people. If others understand these apparently clear and obvious verses differently, does it necessarily mean that they are overlooking the 'obvious' or does it simply mean that they understand those verses in a different way to how we ourselves might?
Again, take it up with them ...
If we 'take it up with God' what is he going to do?
Open the clouds and shout with a booming voice, 'That person's interpretation is the right one ... ' or 'No, you're all wrong, this is how it should be understood ...'?
I rather think he'd allow us to engage our brains and try to work it all out between ourselves, which is what we are trying to do here.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
@Enoch. Nope. That's the false dichotomy again. That Jesus' death is a legal transaction in any way. It is part of the proof in His life from conception to resurrection, the entire incarnation, that our lives have meaning and are redeemable, we can start again, prior to death. Yes His faithful, submissive death was the price of that essential demonstration, that breaking through. Everything else is stuff we make up.
Martin, have I said anywhere that I think Jesus's death is a legal transaction?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
On PSA and the Trinity, here's Milton expounding PSA (the speaker is God the Father):
'man disobeying,
Disloyal, breaks his fealty, and sins
Against the high supremacy of heaven,
Affecting Godhead, and so losing all,
To expiate his treason hath naught left,
But to destruction sacred and devote,
He with his whole posterity must die -
Die he or justice must; unless for him
Some other, able, and as willing, pay
The rigid satisfaction, death for death.
Say heavenly powers, where shall we find such
love?
Which of ye will be mortal, to redeem
Man's mortal crime, and just the unjust to save?
Dwells in all heaven charity so dear?'
He asked, but all the heavenly choir stood mute,
And silence was in heaven: on man's behalf
Patron or intercessor none appeared -
Much less that durst upon his own head draw
The deadly forfeiture, and ransom set.
(P.L. Bk III, lines 203-221.)
Is anyone going to want to argue that Milton has misunderstood PSA?
To note: it is here heavily implied that Raphael, or Gabriel, or any angel could have freely assumed the guilt had they been willing. The atonement did not need to be undertaken by God or any person of the Trinity to be effective.
And indeed Milton was an Arian himself. He did not think that the Son of God was in any meaningful sense God except as a title of honour.
Conclusion: while PSA may not force Arianism, it nevertheless is entirely compatible with Arianism. I think that's a bit of a flaw in 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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
@Enoch.
I apologize, I read what I was loaded to see in "The death and resurrection of Christ saves us, really, ontologically, and cosmologically.".
If that means the fact of Jesus' resurrection from death proves we have eternal life and all other meanings are secondary to that.
@Dafyd. Quality. Terribly beautiful heresy. I had no idea Milton was Arian.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
