|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: One Atonement
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
This isn't a rights and wrongs of PSA thread, but it does concern it. I sometimes get the very strong impression - perhaps even more than just an impression - that some Christians desire to translate and understand the atonement within one single parameter; that being PSA. I have my own issues with PSA on a philosophical and theological level, but such concerns are essentially irrelevant to this thread because what I'm asking isn't the rights and wrongs of it, but rather why some, appear at least, to want to make this the closed doctrine of atonement and the only one that should be considered correct? I guess it interests me because the doctrine has never really been 'settled' of fixed in any real terms and so I'm struggling to understand why you might want to do that now, two thousand years later.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I am not aware that anybody has ever said that there is only one correct interpretation of what happened n the cross, or the meaning behind the birth/life/death/resurrection of Jesus.
What I do see from many evangelicals like myself is an appreciation of each and every one of them because they reveal a different angle on the atonement and are all founded on Scripture.
However, accepting each one, you will find that evangelicals will probably say that all of them are useful but substitutionary atonement is the one that actually effects a change in the heart of the penitent and transfers the transgression of the individual to Christ in a way that other theories do not.
Evangelicals, being conversionists would see that as necessary to the salvation process.
--------------------
"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
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
What I've observed where I live (which includes people who don't live here) is thats some Christians (not necessarily Evangelicals), see PSA as the litmus test for Christian authenticity. Now to a degree, here where I live, there is an element of cultural and historical reasoning to this and also a fair amount of sectarian drive, but it's not always quite a simple as all that. PSA is spoken of by them as the only way atonement is to be considered. So I'm trying to understand why anyone would want to fix atonement within this single parameter. The fact that I have seen this written of and heard it spoken of by other Christians, sometimes well outside my own context here, makes me think it is not just a cultural or geographically historical phenomena to here.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I don't know where your 'prefecture' is - so I can't comment on the sectarian nature of where you live.
Perhaps rather than saying that PSA is the only theory worth considering, it might be better t say that when one looks at all the theories, if there was one or two that had to discard the last one would be PSA.
It's not a litmus test per se, but an evangelical would ask, how can Jesus take my sins away if they are not transferred to him? How can he take my guilt away if he doesn't take it on himself?
It's not a case of PSA being the only one, or indeed the mark of orthodoxy, but is the one that evangelicals cannot live without.
I think you will find in hymnody used by evangelicals everything from moral influence, victory, sacrifice, satisfaction, and recapitulation, these may all be included. All these will be alongside the truth of PSA, but you will never have an evangelical hymnal without PSA, simply because it fits the evangelical experience of the Gospel and our basis for evangelism.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
There was extensive discussion on this topic in this recent thread.
My take is that while many Evangelicals, at least in the States, will say they value all theories of atonement, PSA is treated as non-negotiable—or as fletcher christian said, a litmus test of orthodoxy—while all other theories are treated as optional add-ons.
[ 22. April 2017, 12:11: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It depends on the type of evangelical. As a rough rule of thumb, the more Calvinist they are the more the weight put on PSA as the defining feature.
That doesn't mean that Arminian evangelicals hold any less to PSA but in my experience it's more likely to be more Calvinistically inclined evangelicals who use it as a litmus test as to whether someone is 'saved' or not.
As I've said before, Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones doubted that C S Lewis was a true believer because Lewis didn't sign up for PSA.
It's become a convenient who's in/who's out litmus test for a particular kind of hyper-Calvinist or fundamentalist evangelical.
Hence the emphasis on 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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Surely, it reflects one's opinion on what Jesus' death actually does.
If you believe that God's love in Christ is a demonstration, an example, an encouragement to accept that love, then that's the area of atonement theory you will go for:
You will love to sing:
Love so amazing, so divine, demands my soul m life, my all, etc.
If you believe that Jesus' life was a re-run of how a life should be lived, breaking the power of evil upon humanity, then you will happily go for a more recapitulation type of atonement.
You will sing lustily:
A second Adam to the fight and to the rescue came.
If you believe that the death of Jesus actually removes one's sins, satisfies the penalties for deliberate transgressions and removes all condemnation, then PSA is going to inspire you.
You'll happily sing:
Bearing shame and scoffing ride, In my place condemned he stood,
Sealed my pardon with his blood,
Hallelujah! What a Saviour.
If you are an evangelical, it's not a case of a litmus test, a mark of orthodoxy, it's a matter of this is what evangelicalism is about and therefore we emphasise it.
Other churches, like Orthodox churches, for example, highlight the healing aspect of the atonement. It would be as wrong for me to say that this is their litmus test as it would be for someone to say that PSA is mine.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I think it is a truism that Calvinist evangelicals generally only accept PSA. Indeed, I can prove this as I have several theology books from Calvinist publishers (including the infamous Banner of Truth) which say so.
In fact, I only became aware that there were more than one theory of the atonement by reading one of these books - which did a reasonable job of explaining what they were, and then trashed them all except PSA.
But then I also accept what Mudfrog says to the extent that there are a wide variety of people who self-identify as Evangelicals and there are self-evidently various thoughts and views on the atonement.
I suppose the main issue here is that the more-Calvinist positions have in recent decades become much more vocal about claiming the term "evangelical" to mean what-the-say-it-means and have had considerable influence over more-liberal evangelicals.
For example several decades ago UCCF, the British University umbrella group for evangelicals, had a policy of refusing to allow presidents who were female and IIRC having some policy about women speakers. I also heard that some individual had various run-ins when outside people objected to a Salvation Army president.
As I observe the phenomena, these kinds of Evangelical groups are often put under incredible pressure by the more conservative (and usually more Calvinistic) local churches to conform to their norms - which may not represent the majority of the student members at all.
I therefore postulate that the more Calvinistic view on PSA = the atonement may have more observable than real strength, just because the Calvinists tend to make more of a deal about it than anyone else and tend to claim that they're speaking on behalf of all Evangelicals.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If you are an evangelical, it's not a case of a litmus test, a mark of orthodoxy, it's a matter of this is what evangelicalism is about and therefore we emphasise it.
I'm sorry Mudfrog, for a lot of Evangelicals it absolutely is a litmus test of belief.
I accept it isn't for you, but you're not everyone.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
But then, to be fair, it is quite interesting to wonder what theory is being discussed in individual Evangelical hymns and song in their hymnbooks.
I have a feeling we're talked about this before so I'll not say too much; but my impression is that the vast majority are talking about some version of PSA.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But then, to be fair, it is quite interesting to wonder what theory is being discussed in individual Evangelical hymns and song in their hymnbooks.
I have a feeling we're talked about this before so I'll not say too much; but my impression is that the vast majority are talking about some version of PSA.
Which rather suggests that the problem is with those who refuse to believe in PSA: you are insisting that we evangelicals MUST only believe in PSA and you don't believe it therefore you criticise us for doing so.
If an evangelical sings When I survey the wondrous cross with that wonderful final line about Love so amazing...demands my all, do you really think we are looking behind every letter to try and fond PSA? Are you suggesting that we are looking for PSA even though it isn't there?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
It's a personal and vague anecdote but:
I'm pretty sure I recall overhearing "Tom Wright" being described as having said something 'heretical', with the something being something to do with PSA. I can't remember what it was he was meant to have said (I know my impression then was that it was technically wrong*, but at worst well within the range of expected sermon wrongness, and if followed by a 'but' not even that) but at that instant I was much more impressed with the Liberal chapel using 'the, of course he's an evangelical' notes for a confirmation course, than by our side.
*which doesn't mean it was (or it may have been worse than I heard).
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Which rather suggests that the problem is with those who refuse to believe in PSA: you are insisting that we evangelicals MUST only believe in PSA and you don't believe it therefore you criticise us for doing so.
How do you get that? Did you read what I said above at all?
quote:
If an evangelical sings When I survey the wondrous cross with that wonderful final line about Love so amazing...demands my all, do you really think we are looking behind every letter to try and fond PSA? Are you suggesting that we are looking for PSA even though it isn't there?
Some certainly are.
If you read what I wrote above you'll note that I clearly said that I accept that you do not. But then I've also clearly said that you are not all evangelicals.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If an evangelical sings When I survey the wondrous cross with that wonderful final line about Love so amazing...demands my all, do you really think we are looking behind every letter to try and fond PSA? Are you suggesting that we are looking for PSA even though it isn't there?
Is that, that common a song (obv in the case of Watt's songs they get everywhere, I mean in evangelical services).
In any case the fourth verse (which is actively a non-PSA model of atonement, though of course not itself anti) is ommitted allegedly starting from George Whitfield (just seen a sixth verse I've not seen before, which could be similar). So it cuts both ways
[ 22. April 2017, 15:55: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
Thinking about it's the other Easter song that has the lyrics "It was ** *** that held him there" which I've seen as "my sin" (most places), "God's wrath" (the sort of place tending to the type under discussion*) and "his love" (I can't recall where, it may even have been overlapping congregations**)
* I think there may have been some temporary justification, perhaps it was during a season on Romans? But at the same time I can't imagine them going the other way with "In Christ Alone" (although somewhere did, and again )**
**though it did have many good strengths too.
[ 22. April 2017, 16:21: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If an evangelical sings When I survey the wondrous cross with that wonderful final line about Love so amazing...demands my all, do you really think we are looking behind every letter to try and fond PSA? Are you suggesting that we are looking for PSA even though it isn't there?
Is that, that common a song (obv in the case of Watt's songs they get everywhere, I mean in evangelical services).
In any case the fourth verse (which is actively a non-PSA model of atonement, though of course not itself anti) is ommitted allegedly starting from George Whitfield (just seen a sixth verse I've not seen before, which could be similar). So it cuts both ways
When I Survey is indeed popular. I've just checked: it's in Songs of Fellowship.
Not sure why you would think that it wouldn't be acceptable to evangelicals. Is the 4th verse really omitted??
In the context of modern worship it's now often sung to the tune of O Whaley Waley
You might also like this arrangement from the Gaither fold - . Southern Bible-belt Gospel no less.
[ 22. April 2017, 16:22: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mudfrog:
When I Survey is indeed popular. I've just checked: it's in Songs of Fellowship.
Not sure why you would think that it wouldn't be acceptable to evangelicals. Is the 4th verse really omitted??
[/URL]
I'm not saying it wouldn't be acceptable to (conservative)evangelicals.
It's about everywhere (apparently even the Mormons have some of Watt's songs, I don't know if that includes this). But there's only a short window when it's used, and it wouldn't take much to have it crowded out (I don't think we, Motr anglican+churches together good friday,had it this year, either) [or treated as a sop to people expecting to hear it].
The 4th verse ("then I am dead to all the world") is ommitted from Baptist Hymnal and Sacred Songs, but I've definitely seen it so suspect is in English Hymnal. The 6th I've just seen is a bit doxologic (but without the trinity) and I suspect is very new.
I wouldn't have classed SoF as being especially 'Evangelical'.
[ 22. April 2017, 16:37: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
When I survey the Wondrous Cross is in Redemption Hymnal which was a revivalist hymn book published jointly by the Elim Pentecostal Church, the Apostolic Church and the Assemblies of God.
It has also been in The Song Book of The Salvation Army since at least 1899.
One wonders how much more evangelical one can get.
--------------------
"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
With respect, Mudfrog, I think you are missing the point here.
I don't see anyone here criticising you or your particular brand of evangelicalism. What I do see are people like mr cheesy and myself who have, arguably, been exposed to more Calvinistic forms of evangelicalism making the thoroughly uncontentious point that certain Calvinistic evangelicals want to corner the term 'evangelical' and apply it purely to their own brand.
As a Wesleyan evangelical you would be regarded as somewhat iffy.
You also act as if you can speak for all evangelicals. You can't.
You can no more speak for all evangelicals than the Anglicans here could speak for all Anglicans or the Baptists speak for all Baptists.
I'm not saying anything here about the ins and outs of PSA, simply that for particular types of hard-line Calvinist evangelicals it is uncertain whether someone is actually a Christian if they don't subscribe to PSA.
Listing the various atonement models detectable in popular hymns doesn't obviate that.
That is what these people believe - although, as with everything else, there are shades and nuances.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
As for Isaac Watts, he wasn't an evangelical and he ended his life in a church with Arian leanings.
Certain Reformed evangelicals wouldn't consider Eliminate, the AoG or the Salvation Army as being 'true' evangelicals either ...
I would. They wouldn't.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I accept all of that.
What I am trying to do is avoid a rerun of the discussion on the other thread and answer the question 'why' evangelicals like PSA.
I'm simply trying to highlight that the reason is simply because of our evangelicalism. I honestly see no difference at all between Calvinists and Arminians and Wesleyans on this.
All of us will say that one needs to be forgiven and that Christ took our sins upon himself.
Whether Calvinists think they are the only evangelicals I have no idea! That's up to them.
As far as I am concerned if one can subscribe t the EA statement of faith that makes one an evangelical.
What I am also trying to do is suggest, once again, that evangelicals are not also narrow-minded as to ONLY believe in PSA - hence the use of the songs/hymns.
I am surprised that someone is trying to say that we don't really believe the words of WISTWC and that it's not really in evangelical hymn books - and, quite surprisingly, that Songs of Fellowship is not really evangelical.
Odd.
And now I'm seeing that maybe I'm not a proper evangelical because some Calvinists might think I'm not.
--------------------
"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
I don't think anyone here is saying that, Mudfrog. I'm not.
I'm simply suggesting that you cannot speak for all evangelicals, just as I can't speak for post-evangelicals or however else someone might categorise me.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I have never met a Calvinist who said I wasn't an evangelical.
They don't like Arminianism right enough but that doesn't disqualify me from being an evangelical.
I am well aware that Mr W wasn't exactly an evangelical; but that kind of proves my point.
He wrote about a particular theory of the atonement that evangelicals are quite happy to sing about - with some emotion, I can say.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I am surprised that someone is trying to say that we don't really believe the words of WISTWC and that it's not really in evangelical hymn books - and, quite surprisingly, that Songs of Fellowship is not really evangelical.
Odd.
Almost all the churches I went to as a kid had Songs of Fellowship (with something else). It's, well fellowshipy and had 600 odd songs, (and though I've not personally seen it in a Catholic church, apparently it got there pretty fast too) so it's not JUST evangelical even in the lowest and widest sense (although published by Kingsway, it clearly INCLUDES at least one branch of charismatic*).
Though I concede I should have been more specific in the initial quote ("mean in evangelical services"), that it was Evangelical where Charismatic has it's own badge, rather than Evangelical meaning not Catholic or Orthodox.
But in that same quote I was also quite specific that I'd expect it to be present there as everywhere else (and hence in the hymnal) but wouldn't class it as being automatically representative of the 'vast majority' without at least asking the question.
*and hence you could pick some, say Catholic hymns, that almost certainly won't be in there.
[edited to add capitals]
[ 22. April 2017, 18:28: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I've said quite a lot about this on previous threads; so I'm not going to say any more, at least for now.
However, if sola PSA is a mark of the true Calvinist, then Calvin himself wasn't a Calvinist.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What I am trying to do is avoid a rerun of the discussion on the other thread and answer the question 'why' evangelicals like PSA.
But that wasn't the question that the OP asked. The OP asked why some Evangelicals want to make PSA the only acceptable understanding of the atonement.
quote:
What I am also trying to do is suggest, once again, that evangelicals are not also narrow-minded as to ONLY believe in PSA - hence the use of the songs/hymns.
And what others are saying is that you are right that some Evangelicals believe in understandings other than PSA, but you are not correct that all do.
As for the hymns, it seems to me that it is quite possible for someone who believes only in PSA to sing "love so amazing..." with gusto, understanding those words as referring to our response to the atonement, not to the nature of the atonement itself. That's how I've always understood it.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
However, if sola PSA is a mark of the true Calvinist, then Calvin himself wasn't a Calvinist.
Indeed.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Well as I'm evidently not a true evangelical and therefore not one of the 'some evangelicals' I'm evidently engaging in a discussion that has bugger all to do with me...
I'll leave you all to it in case there is a real Calvinist evangelical here who wants to talk to you.
...which I very much doubt.
[ 22. April 2017, 20:37: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well as I'm evidently not a true evangelical and therefore not one of the 'some evangelicals' I'm evidently engaging in a discussion that has bugger all to do with me...
I'll leave you all to it in case there is a real Calvinist evangelical here who wants to talk to you.
...which I very much doubt.
No one here has said you are not a true Evangelical, or questioned your evangelical bona fides. All that has been said is that if you are not a PSA-only type, some Evangelicals we have encountered in real life might question whether you are a true Evangelical, just as they might question whether Catholics are really Christians.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
There was extensive discussion on this topic in this recent thread.
My take is that while many Evangelicals, at least in the States, will say they value all theories of atonement, PSA is treated as non-negotiable—or as fletcher christian said, a litmus test of orthodoxy—while all other theories are treated as optional add-ons.
PSA is above all other tests as a mark of Sydney Anglicanism, a feature which distinguishes it from the traditional low-church evangelical approach which was the main path in the diocese until the 1980s; then the Moore College training changed and PSA took the lead. But the school does not allow other theories as optional add-ons - it's PSA or you're just not a Christian.
There are still quite a few of the traditional school left, would have been at home in many an English country parish of the 1700s.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I have never met a Calvinist who said I wasn't an evangelical.
Me too.
I am not only un-Calvinistic but anti-Calvinistic, and therefore keep a constant suspicious eye on Calvinists.
In my very long experience as an evangelical, I have not noticed any tendency for Arminians to be any less supportive of PSA than Calvinists - just more likely to recognise other models in addition.
The really interesting thing about PSA, at least as far as the Ship is concerned, is why its opponents are so obsessed with it.
They are like a dog with a bone which they cannot leave alone.
We recently had a very long thread about it, and here we go again.
Why?
There are, AFAIK, no "PSA only" people on the Ship.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The really interesting thing about PSA, at least as far as the Ship is concerned, is why its opponents are so obsessed with it.
They are like a dog with a bone which they cannot leave alone.
We recently had a very long thread about it, and here we go again.
Why?
This fascinates me because every time we have an anti-PSA thread, people come out of the woodwork to say exactly what they think is wrong with it and why. And you claim not to have ever been told? Amazing.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
In my very long experience as an evangelical, I have not noticed any tendency for Arminians to be any less supportive of PSA than Calvinists - just more likely to recognise other models in addition.
Which is all the difference in the world (and definitely all the difference in the thread title).
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
Going back to the OP, I'd hypothesise that as you get closer to 'sola PSA', the more the various concepts get fused
That is:
(human description of PSA)
Penal Subs A.
Substitutionary A.
the Atonement
(any thing to do with the cross, grace, forgiveness, heaven, etc...)
get more and more indistinguishable.
It was notable in the last thread, that one of the passages used to defend PSA, clearly wasn't PSA. But because it was describing the atonement, the rest of the PSA was assumed. Even at the lighter level, it's a metaphor* for the atonement and a metaphor of PSA are seen as being the same thing.
While at the other scale, because the cross, incarnation, grace, judgement, etc... are rather important being passionate about 'defending' them is unsurprising.
Moreover on the multiple models to one 'model' (regardless of one model), you go from this is like, to this is. And thus you have to do the mental gymnastics to fit everything in. And at the extreme ignore and overwrite large parts of the bible.
However with the many models the bits that clash with scripture, it is far easier to let scripture win. But also easy to do that for bits that are in the biblical description. Again ignoring large parts of the bible.
*not really metaphor, but in the context this works well.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Mudfrog and Kaplan. I wouldn't be surprised if you'd met Calvinists who did consider you evangelical but not Evangelical - but they might have been too polite to say so.
They would certainly have considered you to be fellow Christians but not big E Evangelical Christians like themselves.
Both of you are missing the point to some extent. There are certain Big R Big E Reformed Evangelicals who would doubt the salvation of anyone who didn't hold to PSA.
Just because you haven't met them doesn't mean they don't exist. I've never met the Dalai Lama either but I accept he is there ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
If it helps, Fletcher Christian lives in Northern Ireland.
Does that set the context for the OP?
I can't remember where in Australia Kaplan lives but I don't think it's Sydney.
FWIW across the Southern Baptists and other US denominations there's currently a big Reformed Evangelical push going on.
Hard-line Calvinism seems to wax and wane and come and go cyclically. There's a rather vitriolic resurgence of it in some circles at the moment.
--------------------
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
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Gam:
quote:
If it helps, Fletcher Christian lives in Northern Ireland.
First I heard, lol. I did once though.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think I knew you lived south of the border, come to think of it ...
But I was assuming that you were referring to a particular type of Ulster Protestant.
At any rate, your OP made it clear that the issue you wanted us to discuss wasn't the ins and outs of PSA but why it is that certain types of evangelical make PSA the be-all and end-all of atonement theories.
In an over-sensistive kind of way, it seems to me, Mudfrog and Kaplan have over-reacted as if this was some kind of blanket observation about all evangelicals.
That'd be like Mousethief over-reacting if someone suggested that all Orthodox go in for 'Toll Booth' ideas about the after-life or an Anglican over-reacting if someone suggested that all Episcopalians were like Spong or Cupitt.
I didn't see anyone laying this particular charge to evangelicalism per se yet Mudfrog and Kaplan come along as if they are the official spokesmen for all matters evangelical rather than them being representatives of particular subsets within 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
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
FWIW across the Southern Baptists and other US denominations there's currently a big Reformed Evangelical push going on.
A few things, from someone who has lived his life srrounded by Southern Baptists:
In my experience and observation, they would never use the word "Reformed," unless it's in the sense of "reformed compared to other Baptists." They certainly do not use it in the traditional sense of Capital-R Reformed, not do they identify in any way as Reformed. They tend to use "Calvinist," though others might say it is selective Calvinism. Lots of TULIP (which is really post-Calvin), for example, while ignoring, say, Calvinist understanding of the church or of the sacraments.
Also, the Calvinists in the Southern Baptist Convention are heavily opposed by much of the SBC establishment.
And all of that said, PSA is pretty much the official and non-negotiable position of the SBC.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
I don't know about anyone else, but PSA reminds me of the principle of justice in Terry Pratchett's Anhk-Morpork: in the Patrician's view crime should be punished; if punishment is meted out to whoever, justice is served.
So if the most important person in Heaven and on earth is punished (innocent Jesus) then justice is served for all. It really sounds to me like a plot point in a satirical fantasy.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I'd venture that a majority (at least of the most vocal Evangelicals who talk about the theology of the atonement) are PSA-only. A fairly large number don't have much awareness of the idea that there exist different theories of the atonement and hence hold contradictory ideas of the atonement (because they use different theories in different contexts).
A very small number actually reject PSA altogether.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
For example several decades ago UCCF, the British University umbrella group for evangelicals, had a policy of refusing to allow presidents who were female and IIRC having some policy about women speakers.
You do not RC. No such policy on either female presidents or speakers ever existed. This is simply utter rubbish.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I stand corrected. There was an issue, I thought it was due to the UCCF but it appears to have been down to local university groups not the UCCF.
Apols, memory problem.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I stand corrected. There was an issue, I thought it was due to the UCCF but it appears to have been down to local university groups not the UCCF.
Apols, memory problem.
Thanks ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Back to the subject of the thread, UCCF do have a policy on that, if that helps.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Back to the subject of the thread, UCCF do have a policy on that, if that helps.
What is it? Also - is it wrong to think that UCCF is calvinistic in outlook?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Back to the subject of the thread, UCCF do have a policy on that, if that helps.
What is it? Also - is it wrong to think that UCCF is calvinistic in outlook?
Well, that PSA is true and the central, not only, way of understanding the atonement. Although I say that's a policy, I'm not sure that's even written down - just what you're likely to hear, as per John Stott in the Cross of Christ.
On the Calvinistic thing - no formal policy. In my experience the staff were a mixed bag of views on that with non-Calvinists right up to the most senior levels. Probably more Calvinists than Arminians overall.
[ 23. April 2017, 16:59: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Gam:
quote:
If it helps, Fletcher Christian lives in Northern Ireland.
First I heard, lol. I did once though.
My first ministry appointment was in the late 1980s in Londonderry - so I know all about the divisions - including the Calvinist 'versus the rest of us' Protestantism.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Lyda-Rose, I'd lay money that Pratchett was deliberately parodying PSA, even if he didn't know the terminology. It's just too juicy to be accidental.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I have a friend who is an adherent member of The Salvation Army. (An adherent is one who doesn't enter into the soldiers' covenant. They don't have to subscribe to all our doctrines or lifestyle choices).
Anyway, he is a former minster who ha married a Salvation Army officer.
He is a Calvinist and cannot be a SA soldier because he doesn't accept three of our doctrinal statements that are specifically Wesleyan/Arminian.
He has no problem at all describing me (or his wife for that matter) as an evangelical.
--------------------
"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. But that's him. He isn't Evangelicalism any more than you are the paradigm representative of it either.
All I'm saying is that there are Big R Big E Reformed Evangelicals out there who would consider you to be evangelical with a small e rather than Evangelical with a Big E.
That's all. Obviously the mileage is going to vary. I've come across uber-Reformed Evangelicals who wouldn't even consider Pentecostals to be Christians, but this is rarer than it would have been at one time.
--------------------
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
