|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: One Atonement
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think, mr cheesy, that there is a difference between being guilty of something and feeling guilty about something.
If I stole a leg of beef from Mudfrog I'd certainly be guilty. Whether I felt guilty about that or not would be a different matter. I rather hope I would (just as I hope I wouldn't steal a leg of beef from him in the first place) ...
Mm. I need to think about that.
It reminds me a bit of reading that Solitary Confinement (as an idea in terms of prison) was something promoted initially by Quaker reformers. The idea was that the prisoner was supposed to be put away from distractions, which would help him focus on the crime and his guilt and this would lead him to resolve to be a better person.
In practice, of course, it leads to madness.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Cross-posted with mr cheesy ...
Yes, I can see that. There's an irony, of course, that some of those who most emphasise 'free and sovereign grace' can be among the most ungracious people you could ever wish to meet ...
Or that those who proclaim, 'Hallelujah! Jesus took away my guilt and shame ...' can often either be wracked with guilt over the most trivial things or else triumphalistic about their apparent victory over the world, the flesh and the Devil and blind to their own particular besetting sins or the effect their hyper-spirituality has on other people ...
There is a balance somewhere of course.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Might I ask, which aspect of the atonement rids me of my guilt?
That's an interesting question. I've often reflected on the response to the Lord in the gospels and how remarkably lacking in self-loathing and guilt the depicted characters appear to be.
My conclusion is that on meeting the Christ, it wasn't so much that individuals had the guilt "taken away" so much as that it didn't matter any more. I suspect Zacchaeus felt a bit guilty about ripping people off, that the mother of James and John felt a bit guilty about pestering the Lord about giving them a special ministry in the kingdom. In those and other situations, I don't see the Lord saying "it's ok guys, I'm going to take away that guilt you are feeling" as much as he refocussed them onto something else. Come down Zacchaeus, I'm hungry. Nope, Mrs mother-of-James-and-John, that's the wrong question. Nope, person previously paralysed, lady with problematic background, blind person, leper, man at well. This isn't about how awful you are, stop worrying about that and be whole.
Even Paul, who one presumes would be carrying a lot of guilt doesn't seem to waste a lot of time on it nor seems to be particularly focussed on the atonement as a reason of it being taken away IIRC. He's struck blind for a few days then gets up and gets on with it.
Which makes me think that this whole "you're really sinful and awful and God can't possibly get close to you in that state - you horrible little man - so go and get washed in the blood of the lamb and come back when you are properly cleaned of all your guilt" is a load of bunk.
Simply not the way Jesus operated.
This.
And I would add-- the examples you cited (and we could add more) of those transformed by their encounters with Jesus seem to be quite happy about those transformations. There's no indication that Zacchaeus spent any time nostalgically reminiscing about the good old days when he was wealthy. Even with Paul, who's post-conversion life was anything but easy, there's no sense of the dreary in the Christian life, no sense of dutifully doing what you gotta do to avoid eternal damnation but dang it's hard. No, even with the persecuted Paul there's this sense of sheer joy-- that whatever pain he's experiencing it was worth it.
This again, suggests that the "sin problem" is not so much about how pissed off God is at us because we broke the rules as it is about how much suffering is caused by our sin. As much as we may think like pre-conversion Zacchaeus that our freedom to steal or cheat is the path to true happiness, we find the truth that it only leads to suffering. Jesus comes to save us from that, to give us the opportunity for a new & different life, not because he's pissed off and this is a last chance for us to shape up, but because he is heartbroken by the suffering caused by sin.
A related idea: in the NT you see all these different groups of people trying to "be pure". The Pharisees do this by scrupulous if joyless adherence to the Law and avoidance of law-breakers (sinners). The zealots do this by seeking to remove the impure Roman overlords from the Promised Land. The essenes do this by avoiding the contamination of "the world" and forming their separatist communities. All are concerned with purity, and all seek to achieve it by distancing themselves from the "impure" so they will not be contaminated by their impurity.
But Jesus does the exact opposite-- rather than distancing himself from the impure, Jesus is constantly moving toward the impure-- tax-collectors, prostitutes. He even allows a hemorrhaging woman to touch him and rewards that audacious act with healing. The idea seems to be that rather than being contaminated by our impurity, Jesus moves to us to infect us with his purity.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But Jesus does the exact opposite-- rather than distancing himself from the impure, Jesus is constantly moving toward the impure-- tax-collectors, prostitutes. He even allows a hemorrhaging woman to touch him and rewards that audacious act with healing. The idea seems to be that rather than being contaminated by our impurity, Jesus moves to us to infect us with his purity.
Exactly. Those who insist that God and man are separated by the a gulf which can only be bridged by the cross clearly haven't been paying a lot of attention to the actions of Jesus gospels. Or the parables.
Here is God - depicted as a man who sees his son, a drunken partying lout who has spent all his money on drugs and has recently pulled himself out of the gutter because he has in the back of his mind that his father might take pity on him and offer him a manual job on the farm at minimum wage - running out to welcome him home.
For me, for all the claims of being "bible believing", this is where those who want to claim that there is an angry wrathful God who is forced to punish sin come unstuck.
They just don't sound like Jesus.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
The question is whether the atonement is really one of those things and whether one can have any certainty that in the NT era they believed in PSA.
There is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case.
That's amusing. Looking at the scriptures, I'd say there was no evidence they believed in anything OTHER than an atonement which involved a penal element.
Then at what point did they modify or abandon that?
At what point were they ever SOLO Scriptura?
You are anochronistic and assume that because your conservative evangelical tradition interprets the scriptures in a particular way then everyone else must have done the same until somebody or other deviated from it at some point.
Listen good Gamaliel. To me this is not a contest of traditions. It is a battle for souls. Take Timothy, he was enjoined by Paul to maintain the apostles teaching and rebuke those ho deviated.
The evangelical tradition is NOT mine. I am actually a cradle Catholic. That might surprise you but pretty well every one of the reformers was actually a Catholic priest who recognised through reading the scriptures the error of Catholic teaching on the various doctrinal pillars. The deviation from the very beginning of the faith was AWAY from the apostles teaching after they died.
Personally, I am not influenced by evangelical teaching at all. I am not an evangelical Christian I am a converted Catholic. As such, I find most affinity with people who personally celebrate a personal relationship with the Lord because I share that. Catholics have this powerful push of guilt. That is why they have the sacrament of penance. When a Catholic actually is lifted up by the reality of the Lord, when he or she recognises that the liturgical edifice they were born into is actually leading them towards more bondage rather than heaven, the feeling you can know the Lord,hear the Lord and serve the Lord independently of it, is actually like waking out of a dark night.
One think you quickly learn is the authority of the Bible and central to that authority is the power of the atonement. It is not confession or as they now term it 'reconciliation' the sacrament that cleanses. It is the Biblical atonement. And the power of the atonement, the heart of it, is the revelation that Jesus, once for all was the sacrifice as the book of Hebrews states so clearly. You do not need an ordained so called 'priest' celebrating 'mass' for you to experience it or benefit from it. What you need is a trust in the blood of Jesus.
That blood is the engine room of the transformation of the individual. It is what defeats the enemy by changing the ownership papers on the lives of believers. Why is it so powerful? Hebrews tells us when it says without shedding of blood,there is no forgiveness of sins. Now why would that be? It is kind of obvious, Christ, the lamb, the real lamb of God was our Passover,sacrificed for us. There was judgement,there was wrath,the blood of Christ has turned it aside.
It is unfortunate that the word penal has had to come into the deal as a kind of intellectualisation of it but the outcome doesn't alter. Somehow Christ absorbed that judgement, diverted that wrath and restored the relationship of humanity to its creator. That is the heart of the faith.
If you do not have a revelation of that and an acceptance of it, you are not a Christian. All the traditions that have ever been or ever will be cannot change your eternal destiny. Go play games with the Orthodox Gamaliel. Go light a few candles and get yourself an icon or two. Why, buddy, maybe you could even grow a beard. It won't change you.The atonement can..but has It?
Then you and Kaplan have a nice time in heaven, alone. The rest of us will be doing just fine in Hell with Jesus.
Martin 60: Romans 10:9-13 ,John 10:9 Martin as you know perfectly well, these passages lay out salvation basics. Just follow the Romans road.🌞
Kaplan Corday: I too have met some wonderful Catholic believers. However, as I recall it Catholic soteriology is a mixture of grace and works and Catholicism AFAIK regards grace as ministered to the individual by means of the 7 sacraments. The sacraments are ministered through the Catholic Church. Grace, is thus not necessarily defined Biblically in Catholicism which claims the control of the process thus failing on 3 scores, their assumption that they alone speak for God and that they alone control the dispensing of God's efficacy and the actual nature of that efficacy which they call grace.
The bottom line anyway is that you have to submit to them to receive it. Thus, "works" and "Grace". The Catholic system is very paradoxical since you will find it strives to be inclusive but scratch the surface and you find some pretty iron clad doctrines that are anything but. It has evolved somewhat from the burning of heretics but I suspect that if it ever again became a geopolitical force, then the same things would happen as happened in the past.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It has evolved somewhat from the burning of heretics but I suspect that if it ever again became a geopolitical force, then the same things would happen as happened in the past.
Yeah, because as we know, when Luther and Calvin were in charge that never happened.
Oh wait.
[ 13. May 2017, 15:21: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It has evolved somewhat from the burning of heretics but I suspect that if it ever again became a geopolitical force, then the same things would happen as happened in the past.
Yeah, because as we know, when Luther and Calvin were in charge that never happened.
Oh wait.
Yes, Luther and Calvin also behaved badly but that is completely irrelevant to my point.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Yes, Luther and Calvin also behaved badly but that is completely irrelevant to my point.
How is it irrelevant to your point?
Calvin, Luther and the others managed to uncover the deep forgotten truths about the atonement but somehow missed the memo about burning heretics?
That Roman Catholicism at root would burn heretics given a chance, but that Evangelicals, who according to you need to return to the faith of Luther and Calvin are not?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
You seem to have a very pre-Vatican 2 view of Rome. I'm by no means suggesting that Rome is the beesknees, far from it, but from what I can gather the RCC doesn't niece that grace is restricted to the RCC.
Yes, they believe that their Church is THE one and all the others aren't up to scratch, but they certainly don't teach that grace isn't to be found in Protestant churches or Orthodox Churches or even outside Christianity itself ...
The ones who are really exclusive aren't the RCs, apart perhaps from some of the hard-line traditionalists, but those at the more fundamentalist end of the Protestant fundamentalist spectrum.
I don't see RCs here questioning the salvation or the spiritual state of other Shipmates but I see you doing it all the 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
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Mr Cheesy: Exactly. Those who insist that God and man are separated by the a gulf which can only be bridged by the cross clearly haven't been paying a lot of attention to the actions of Jesus gospels. Or the parables
Only if you decontextualise Jesus from the role of Jewish Messiah could you say this.
Regarding the woman with the issue of blood, the way I see this is that that miracle demonstrated ( amongst many other things) his authority over the law as well as his submission to it. By touching him, the woman broke the law but by healing her, he made her clean so the law was not violated.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
'Neice'?
I meant believe ... Dang that predictive text ...
Meanwhile, Luther and Calvin believed all sorts of things contemporary evangelicals don't believe.
They believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary - as did John Wesley, apparently.
They believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist - although in a different way to the RCs of course.
They believed in baptismal regeneration ...
Need I go on?
--------------------
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
I'm with you on the miracle of the woman with the issue of blood - or can see the point you are making there.
How, though, is what mr cheesy saying decontextualising Christ from the role of the Jewish Messiah?
The Jews had various interlocking or overlapping views of the role of the Messiah. Which one is Mr cheesy decontextualising? Mr cheesy
--------------------
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
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Yes, Luther and Calvin also behaved badly but that is completely irrelevant to my point.
How is it irrelevant to your point?
Calvin, Luther and the others managed to uncover the deep forgotten truths about the atonement but somehow missed the memo about burning heretics?
That Roman Catholicism at root would burn heretics given a chance, but that Evangelicals, who according to you need to return to the faith of Luther and Calvin are not?
Yes, Luther was anti Semitic and Calvin would have certainly burned me at the stake.. So what? I was pointing out the nature of Catholicism as I understand it.
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Mr Cheesy: Exactly. Those who insist that God and man are separated by the a gulf which can only be bridged by the cross clearly haven't been paying a lot of attention to the actions of Jesus gospels. Or the parables
Only if you decontextualise Jesus from the role of Jewish Messiah could you say this.
Regarding the woman with the issue of blood, the way I see this is that that miracle demonstrated ( amongst many other things) his authority over the law as well as his submission to it. By touching him, the woman broke the law but by healing her, he made her clean so the law was not violated.
Which, again, is the point-- that Jesus was not contaminated by her impurity, but rather she was contaminated by his purity. Jesus' default stance toward impurity is to move toward the impure rather than away. But we don't just see this with the sort of involuntary ritual impurity that the hemorrhaging woman ran afoul of-- we also see this with voluntary sin. Jesus takes the initiative to eat with Zacchaeus. Jesus allows an adulteress to touch him and wash his feet. This is the complete antithesis of the picture of God you have argued for here-- a God who is incompatible with human sinfulness and so pissed off at us disgusting, filthy humans that he can only be near us through the most extreme of remedies-- the "cleansing blood" of Jesus.
If Jesus is the best representation we have of God (and obviously those of us who believe in the incarnation believe that he is) then the gospels are showing us a God who is very, very different than the one you have argued for here. The reasons and motives for the "cleansing blood" of Jesus are almost 180 different from what you have suggested. It is still what redeems us and brings us into God's presence-- but for the exact opposite reasons you have suggested.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Yes, Luther and Calvin also behaved badly but that is completely irrelevant to my point.
How is it irrelevant to your point?
Calvin, Luther and the others managed to uncover the deep forgotten truths about the atonement but somehow missed the memo about burning heretics?
That Roman Catholicism at root would burn heretics given a chance, but that Evangelicals, who according to you need to return to the faith of Luther and Calvin are not?
Yes, Luther was anti Semitic and Calvin would have certainly burned me at the stake.. So what? I was pointing out the nature of Catholicism as I understand it.
At best, the very very similar sins of Luther and Calvin demonstrate that it is not a unique characteristic of Catholicism, but rather a danger for every human community, everywhere. It's an important and meaningful warning, but one that seems irrelevant to the discussion here. At the risk of stating the obvious: your failure to recognize that completely undermines whatever point you were laboring to make.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm with you on the miracle of the woman with the issue of blood - or can see the point you are making there.
How, though, is what mr cheesy saying decontextualising Christ from the role of the Jewish Messiah?
The Jews had various interlocking or overlapping views of the role of the Messiah. Which one is Mr cheesy decontextualising? Mr cheesy
Mmmm? Did you forget to type something in that last sentence?
I don't think I'm decontextualising anything, of course. I don't think this idea of sin-as-separation has any legs in the OT either. In fact someone could only say that if they'd been paying no attention in Sunday School and/or didn't actually read the bible stories that they claim to believe in.
If it was the case that God could not approach sinful man, then there would always be a sacrifice before God could interact with mankind from Adam and Eve onwards.
Well, let's see if we can remember any occasion for any OT character that follows that pattern.
Noah: God meets Noah, he builds ark, lands, rainbow, sacrifice. Gets drunk and naked.
Moses: murder, burning bush, shoes, no - send Aaron, Pharoah, sacrifice etc
Jonah: calling, refusal, boat, storm, fish, Ninevah, cave, moaning (no sacrifice at all mentioned IIRC)
David: sheep, wolves, dancing, war, sacrifice, adultery, more sacrifice
Can you think of anyone who had to purify themselves of sin before they could interact with the deity?
[ 13. May 2017, 16:15: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Exactly. In both the OT and the NT the trajectory is in the opposite direction, and it is always God who is taking the initiative.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Exactly. In both the OT and the NT the trajectory is in the opposite direction, and it is always God who is taking the initiative.
Fascinating, isn't it? Apparently I'm not a "bible believer" and yet they're pushing a theology which on the face of it has no basis in the bible whatsoever.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Exactly. In both the OT and the NT the trajectory is in the opposite direction, and it is always God who is taking the initiative.
There is something there though.
Moses has to remove his shoes, to avert his face (once, though another time conspicuously doesn't)
Again there, it's God who takes the initiative and bother to come to us safely. Who veils himself, which suggests the problem is our end.
Isiah (even in a vision) gets panicy (in the ESV that does have guilt and atoned together).
You also have the tabernacle, which I guess could be put either way.
And on the other side you have the ark with the Philistines and coming back.
(that was after sacrifices).
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
There is something there though.
Moses has to remove his shoes, to avert his face (once, though another time conspicuously doesn't)
Again there, it's God who takes the initiative and bother to come to us safely. Who veils himself, which suggests the problem is our end.
Yes. There is something, but with Moses it isn't sacrifice.
quote:
Isiah (even in a vision) gets panicy (in the ESV that does have guilt and atoned together).
You also have the tabernacle, which I guess could be put either way.
Isaiah 1 is quite interesting in this context.
quote:
And on the other side you have the ark with the Philistines and coming back.
(that was after sacrifices).
I'm not saying sacrifices weren't important or weren't mentioned in the OT. But it wasn't about individual purity or about mending the bridge between God and sinful people before he could approach them.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Exactly. In both the OT and the NT the trajectory is in the opposite direction, and it is always God who is taking the initiative.
Fascinating, isn't it? Apparently I'm not a "bible believer" and yet they're pushing a theology which on the face of it has no basis in the bible whatsoever.
You simply don't understand the big picture. You take Jesus away from his Jewishness. The OT scenario is God setting boundaries FOR people to interact with him. The issue is way too big to argue here though. You are making Jesus out to be a 1st century Gandhi a kind of all purpose humanitarian socialist. To do this you have to ignore great chunks of the Bible. But shucks,take no notice, I'm delusional right?
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
I want to say on the first it's almost like the problems with us being the ones unable to cope. There's clearly some issue.
With the last one the observation was that sacrifices didn't mend the gap.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
To do this you have to ignore great chunks of the Bible. But shucks,take no notice, I'm delusional right?
Yeah. I'm ignoring every single occasion we have of in the OT of how God met and interacted with people before they were ritually pure by sacrifice. Every one.
Oh no, that's you.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It is irrefutable as at least a possibility.
That is one of the most nonsensical things I think I've ever read here.
If you can't cope with something as obviously true - and in context, relevant - as this, then you should stay out of the discussion.
If you can't handle someone questioning something you said, maybe the Ship isn't your place.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
For goodness sake stop and think before you respond, instead of just flying off the handle every time something presses one of your buttons.
You're just full of insults today. Beats thinking.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
This thread ain't all about you, you know ...
Dear God, it's a disease.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
I want to say on the first it's almost like the problems with us being the ones unable to cope. There's clearly some issue.
With the last one the observation was that sacrifices didn't mend the gap.
I don't believe that sacrifice ever made any difference to God at all. If I'm the creator-of-all-things, what difference does it make to me if an animal dies in this way rather than that?
And as Isaiah 1 (Amos 5) etc shows, God is under absolutely no obligation to accept sacrifices at all.
Those two clear messages from the OT must surely give pause to those who insist that PSA is the only way to understand the atonement in the context of OT sacrifice.
[ 13. May 2017, 16:58: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Odd, isn't it, that a thread on atonement never fails to create bitter discord among the faithful?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
A disease? Perhaps it's Original Sin, Mousethief.
Besides, I can't speak for Kaplan but my comments were intended as gentle ribbing only.
Coming back to the OP ...
It strikes me that there are possible parallels here with the way Western theology has tended to tackle other issues - by filleting and over-analysing everything. You should like that observation, Mousethief ...
So, the RCC can't just have a belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, it has to have God miraculously changing the elements and then performing a further miracle to ensure that we don't notice in terms of taste, texture and so on ...
Yes, I know I've over-simplified it there, but you'll see my point in a moment ...
Equally, evangelical Protestants can't have a belief in PSA without stretching it so far that it becomes the only possible way to understand the atonement ...
Both take one or other aspect of something and then, arguably, stretch it further than it actually goes ...
Sometimes the Orthodox emphasis on Mystery looks tantalisingly attractive ...
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Odd, isn't it, that a thread on atonement never fails to create bitter discord among the faithful?
That's because it's a battle for souls, Kwesi and some here are True Believers and others aren't because they clearly don't believe the Gospel according to Jamat.
Satan has blinded their eyes. They are unable to benefit from the Atonement because they ignore the Plain Teaching of Scripture and have a vested interest in dissing PSA because they think they can save themselves by their own efforts ...
Moreover, they dismiss the Jewish context of the NT and also refuse to acknowledge the obvious truth of Young Earth Creationism, turning instead to godless and humanistic myths about Evolution.
Even worse, they refuse to accept the Dispensationalist schema that neatly sets out a timetable for the End of the World and in so doing empty their lamps of oil and will not be ready on that great and terrible day when the redeemed are Raptured away before the Great Tribulation descends ...
So, it's hardly surprising it causes contention, because the Gospel according to Jamat says so ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
To do this you have to ignore great chunks of the Bible. But shucks,take no notice, I'm delusional right?
Yeah. I'm ignoring every single occasion we have of in the OT of how God met and interacted with people before they were ritually pure by sacrifice. Every one.
Oh no, that's you.
Well I doubt there is much point in discussion, but out of interest where do you get the notion that OT Jewish people had to be ritually clean to pray or approach the Lord? They were enjoined to go to the place the Lord indicated, to sacrifice on the feasts as I understand it, if they could practically get there, and the temple sacrifices were done by priests on behalf of the congregation, but your comments regarding Jonah, Moses etc seem naive to me.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well I doubt there is much point in discussion, but out of interest where do you get the notion that OT Jewish people had to be ritually clean to pray or approach the Lord? They were enjoined to go to the place the Lord indicated, to sacrifice on the feasts as I understand it, if they could practically get there, and the temple sacrifices were done by priests on behalf of the congregation, but your comments regarding Jonah, Moses etc seem naive to me.
You clearly know less about the stories in the OT than you know about theories of the atonement - and that's saying something.
Go away and read some of the stories I've noted above and then we'll talk about sacrifice. And then we can talk about the atonement and how that fits into it - and how PSA clearly doesn't.
Until the point when you know the basics of what it is that you are talking about, there really is no way to have a discussion.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
The plain teaching of scripture is to avoid calling people fools, and to reflect that we shall be judged on how we treat the least of His brethren.
No, I haven't a clue about theories of Atonement, and it's clear to me that evolution happened over a few billion years. Best I look elsewhere than the plain teaching of scripture I suppose.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Odd, isn't it, that a thread on atonement never fails to create bitter discord among the faithful?
That's because it's a battle for souls, Kwesi and some here are True Believers and others aren't because they clearly don't believe the Gospel according to Jamat.
Satan has blinded their eyes. They are unable to benefit from the Atonement because they ignore the Plain Teaching of Scripture and have a vested interest in dissing PSA because they think they can save themselves by their own efforts ...
Moreover, they dismiss the Jewish context of the NT and also refuse to acknowledge the obvious truth of Young Earth Creationism, turning instead to godless and humanistic myths about Evolution.
Even worse, they refuse to accept the Dispensationalist schema that neatly sets out a timetable for the End of the World and in so doing empty their lamps of oil and will not be ready on that great and terrible day when the redeemed are Raptured away before the Great Tribulation descends ...
So, it's hardly surprising it causes contention, because the Gospel according to Jamat says so ...
Gamaliel, you forgot the most important reason for contention.
People getting super defensive if anyone dares to suggest that there are NOT a million legitimate viewpoints on the basics of the faith
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Exactly. In both the OT and the NT the trajectory is in the opposite direction, and it is always God who is taking the initiative.
There is something there though.
Moses has to remove his shoes, to avert his face (once, though another time conspicuously doesn't)
Again there, it's God who takes the initiative and bother to come to us safely. Who veils himself, which suggests the problem is our end.
Isiah (even in a vision) gets panicy (in the ESV that does have guilt and atoned together).
You also have the tabernacle, which I guess could be put either way.
And on the other side you have the ark with the Philistines and coming back.
(that was after sacrifices).
Yes. There is definitely a theme of God's holiness and our sinfulness. Again, the issue is not whether or not there is a "sin problem"-- the question is what is the nature of that sin problem. God's actions throughout the OT and particularly the NT and as exemplified by Jesus is that the problem is not one of separation-- it's not that God's holiness is repulsed by our sinfulness. Rather, the problem seems to be the heartbreaking suffering caused by sin. I suspect that the pain and suffering-- both individual and corporate-- that results from our sins (again, both individual & corporate) is far, far greater than we even recognize. And that breaks God's heart and causes him to move not out of anger but out of compassion. The picture is one of Jesus weeping over Jerusalem rather than chortling over the smoldering Sodom.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Might I ask, which aspect of the atonement rids me of my guilt?
That's an interesting question. I've often reflected on the response to the Lord in the gospels and how remarkably lacking in self-loathing and guilt the depicted characters appear to be.
My conclusion is that on meeting the Christ, it wasn't so much that individuals had the guilt "taken away" so much as that it didn't matter any more. I suspect Zacchaeus felt a bit guilty about ripping people off, that the mother of James and John felt a bit guilty about pestering the Lord about giving them a special ministry in the kingdom. In those and other situations, I don't see the Lord saying "it's ok guys, I'm going to take away that guilt you are feeling" as much as he refocussed them onto something else. Come down Zacchaeus, I'm hungry. Nope, Mrs mother-of-James-and-John, that's the wrong question. Nope, person previously paralysed, lady with problematic background, blind person, leper, man at well. This isn't about how awful you are, stop worrying about that and be whole.
Even Paul, who one presumes would be carrying a lot of guilt doesn't seem to waste a lot of time on it nor seems to be particularly focussed on the atonement as a reason of it being taken away IIRC. He's struck blind for a few days then gets up and gets on with it.
Which makes me think that this whole "you're really sinful and awful and God can't possibly get close to you in that state - you horrible little man - so go and get washed in the blood of the lamb and come back when you are properly cleaned of all your guilt" is a load of bunk.
Simply not the way Jesus operated.
Superb.
--------------------
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
@Jamat, ha ha ...
Fair enough with the riposte, but nowhere have I ever said there are a million ways to understand these things, simply that a range of views are available within the foot print of historic Creedal Christianity... Which is essentially what I'm interested in rather than narrow sectional interests of a reductionist kind ...
To be fair also, and to stop teasing, I think you are right to feel strongly about these issues and to contend for the Gospel as you understand it.
I simply happen to think that you've ratcheted things up so tightly that you've barely room to breathe ...
That isn't to say that there's no air at all where you are, but the atmosphere is rather stuffy ...
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Might I ask, which aspect of the atonement rids me of my guilt?
That's an interesting question. I've often reflected on the response to the Lord in the gospels and how remarkably lacking in self-loathing and guilt the depicted characters appear to be.
My conclusion is that on meeting the Christ, it wasn't so much that individuals had the guilt "taken away" so much as that it didn't matter any more. I suspect Zacchaeus felt a bit guilty about ripping people off, that the mother of James and John felt a bit guilty about pestering the Lord about giving them a special ministry in the kingdom. In those and other situations, I don't see the Lord saying "it's ok guys, I'm going to take away that guilt you are feeling" as much as he refocussed them onto something else. Come down Zacchaeus, I'm hungry. Nope, Mrs mother-of-James-and-John, that's the wrong question. Nope, person previously paralysed, lady with problematic background, blind person, leper, man at well. This isn't about how awful you are, stop worrying about that and be whole.
Even Paul, who one presumes would be carrying a lot of guilt doesn't seem to waste a lot of time on it nor seems to be particularly focussed on the atonement as a reason of it being taken away IIRC. He's struck blind for a few days then gets up and gets on with it.
Which makes me think that this whole "you're really sinful and awful and God can't possibly get close to you in that state - you horrible little man - so go and get washed in the blood of the lamb and come back when you are properly cleaned of all your guilt" is a load of bunk.
Simply not the way Jesus operated.
This.
And I would add-- the examples you cited (and we could add more) of those transformed by their encounters with Jesus seem to be quite happy about those transformations. There's no indication that Zacchaeus spent any time nostalgically reminiscing about the good old days when he was wealthy. Even with Paul, who's post-conversion life was anything but easy, there's no sense of the dreary in the Christian life, no sense of dutifully doing what you gotta do to avoid eternal damnation but dang it's hard. No, even with the persecuted Paul there's this sense of sheer joy-- that whatever pain he's experiencing it was worth it.
This again, suggests that the "sin problem" is not so much about how pissed off God is at us because we broke the rules as it is about how much suffering is caused by our sin. As much as we may think like pre-conversion Zacchaeus that our freedom to steal or cheat is the path to true happiness, we find the truth that it only leads to suffering. Jesus comes to save us from that, to give us the opportunity for a new & different life, not because he's pissed off and this is a last chance for us to shape up, but because he is heartbroken by the suffering caused by sin.
A related idea: in the NT you see all these different groups of people trying to "be pure". The Pharisees do this by scrupulous if joyless adherence to the Law and avoidance of law-breakers (sinners). The zealots do this by seeking to remove the impure Roman overlords from the Promised Land. The essenes do this by avoiding the contamination of "the world" and forming their separatist communities. All are concerned with purity, and all seek to achieve it by distancing themselves from the "impure" so they will not be contaminated by their impurity.
But Jesus does the exact opposite-- rather than distancing himself from the impure, Jesus is constantly moving toward the impure-- tax-collectors, prostitutes. He even allows a hemorrhaging woman to touch him and rewards that audacious act with healing. The idea seems to be that rather than being contaminated by our impurity, Jesus moves to us to infect us with his purity.
He didn't allow it and He didn't heal her.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Mr Cheesy: until the point when you know the basics of what it is that you are talking about, there really is no way to have a discussion
Duh totally agreed. I'm off to do some Bible study.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
<big snip ending with> Simply not the way Jesus operated.
Superb.
Agreed.
--------------------
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 Gamaliel:
To be fair also, and to stop teasing, I think you are right to feel strongly about these issues and to contend for the Gospel as you understand it.
I simply happen to think that you've ratcheted things up so tightly that you've barely room to breathe ...
I like everything about this (content and the heart behind it).
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
He even allows a hemorrhaging woman to touch him and rewards that audacious act with healing. The idea seems to be that rather than being contaminated by our impurity, Jesus moves to us to infect us with his purity.
He didn't allow it and He didn't heal her.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
To mousethief's snip: Ouch! Not undeserved. I am tacitly reproached. Smote by my own conscience. Especially due to my deliberate use of that as a weapon with cliffdweller, who said a lot of good stuff, BUT had a mote in her eye. My beam looks larger.
[ 13. May 2017, 19:11: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
He even allows a hemorrhaging woman to touch him and rewards that audacious act with healing. The idea seems to be that rather than being contaminated by our impurity, Jesus moves to us to infect us with his purity.
He didn't allow it and He didn't heal her.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Especially due to my deliberate use of that as a weapon with cliffdweller, who said a lot of good stuff, BUT had a mote in her eye. My beam looks larger.
Before we start comparing who's is bigger ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) could you explain the mote??? I'm sure I have many, but not at all sure what one you're talking about here.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[qb] He even allows a hemorrhaging woman to touch him and rewards that audacious act with healing. The idea seems to be that rather than being contaminated by our impurity, Jesus moves to us to infect us with his purity.
He didn't allow it and He didn't heal her.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Especially due to my deliberate use of that as a weapon with cliffdweller, who said a lot of good stuff, BUT had a mote in her eye. My beam looks larger.
Before we start comparing who's is bigger could you explain the mote??? I'm sure I have many, but not at all sure what one you're talking about here.
Im guessing he means that the woman touched Jesus before he had a chance to allow or not allow it, and that Jesus said her faith healed her.
Meanwhile, I echo Martin's and mt's approval of your posts.
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Ah, I follow the reasoning. I'm not sure I agree, but that's probably a discussion for a different forum.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
ISTM that the perennial problem associated with the Ship’s consideration of PSA is less the differences of opinion regarding “theories” of the atonement than of fundamentally different approaches to doing theology: its purposes and objectives; and that difference goes much of the way to account for the intensity and frustration that surround our debates.
A recent commentator on the atonement, Tom Stuckey,* indicates that his approach is to see the various atonement “theories” as explicable in terms of (a) the social and cultural context in which they were constructed and (b) their utility, which explains why they were adopted and fell into relative desuetude, or not. They are less explanations of how the atonement works than attempts to convey a sense of what the atonement is about to specific cultures and specific times of varying duration. A second approach is to regard theology as the discovery of eternal truths about God which transcend time and space and are in no sense culture-bound. For such persons, the truth about how the atonement works is as important as the formulations of Chalcedon and Nicaea: outside belief in the agreed conclusions inspired by the Holy Spirit there is heresy and the threat of damnation.
On the Ship, the ardent supporters of PSA tend to have the latter approach, regarding their theory as the only one revealed in scripture and eternally fixed, unconstrained by utility and context. Additionally, they hold that efficacious access to the saving power of Christ involves belief in PSA. That is why to defend and preach it is very important. They are upholding the integrity of the gospel and are not advocates to people with itching ears. That is why they are unwilling to entertain criticism of the theory, and dismiss the provenances of other approaches: they are heresies, or at best only acceptable as far as they in conformity with PSA or point to its primordial status.
The critics, because they do not appear committed to particular alternatives, are of the former school, regarding theological propositions as contextual and utilitarian, rather than eternally true formulations, or as attempts to express eternal truths to contemporary audiences in ways they (including the theologian) can understand. They get angry with PSA not only because they have problems with it, as they have with other theories as well, but that its advocates are so unwilling to debate the matter in a detached academic manner.
Both the supporters and critics of PSA have argued their respective cases ad nauseam so that there can be little doubt as to where each stand. The problem ISTM is that the foundations of the theological approaches have not been discussed, so that the debate drifts towards frustration and abuse because the theological paradigms are incompatible.
Tom Stuckey, The Wrath of God Satisfied? Eugene, 2012
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Actually I was agreeing with mr. cheesy
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Kwesi the meta-analysis is fascinating, thank you. It makes a lot of sense.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Mr Cheesy: until the point when you know the basics of what it is that you are talking about, there really is no way to have a discussion
Duh totally agreed. I'm off to do some Bible study.
Careful mate! It cuts!!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So what are we to do Kwesi?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Actually I was agreeing with mr. cheesy
Oh, you're right. My bad—my brain was getting muddled. You were both agreeing with mr cheesy, not cliffdweller. Sorry about that.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
