|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: One Atonement
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
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.
Not offended.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
I thought Mr Cheesy was agreeing with me?
--------------------
"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
Martin60 quote:
So what are we to do Kwesi?
To be honest, Martin, I don’t know, but I can’t believe that the tone of many of the posts reflects well on our acceptance of atonement, whatever our views on how it works. Personally, I enjoy getting my teeth into a good argument and to be provocative, but when a discussion, particularly on atonement, drifts towards personal antagonism with fellow Christians, let alone others, then I have to ask myself whether the argument is worth continuing at such a cost. Whose spirit is at work?
For many years it was my privilege to know a modest, but internationally respected New Testament scholar, who exemplified the Christian virtues in his practical living, but was also a staunch promoter of PSA through some of his publications. He did not, however, use his status to advance his views confrontationally from the pulpit of his local Methodist congregation, of which he was a faithful and hard-working member, out of respect for what he knew were different views held by those like myself. It would have been divisive and abuse of the pulpit. I decided it was best not to raise the topic in any forum with him because it wasn’t the Christian thing to do, and could only have negative consequences. Perhaps the unspoken understanding was a greater cost to him than me. He may have concluded that love conquered his evangelical duty. On one occasion we attended a Cathedral service at which the presbyterian minister suggested there was no atonement. We both agreed he was mistaken!
Generally speaking, I believe there is much to be learned from religious discussion and controversy, and greatly welcome the space allowed by Ship of Fools because it satisfies my natural inclination to express myself vehemently, helps me to refine my ideas, and allows me room to speculate on things about which I’m very uncertain as to what my position is. In most other context I’m more restrained for a variety of reasons. I suspect that is true of other Shipmates. The Ship may steer an uncertain course but it doesn’t drift towards the shoals when its vigorous debate is underpinned by mutual respect and a recognition that we know and prophecy in part. I think we, and I include myself, find it difficulty to uphold such principles in our discussions on PSA, and wonder whether we are mature enough to debate the issue in a Christian context.
What I was trying to suggest in my post on the theological frameworks or paradigms within which the discussion has been taking place is that an awareness of them might lessen our mutual frustrations and allow us, at least, to agree to differ. If we can't do that I can't see what is the point of this endless discussion in pandemonium, which is exactly what its ruler intends. (OK, I need to deconstruct that, but not now!!)
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
As ever, Kwesi talks a lot of sense.
I think another issue - and I don't wish to be rude or dismissive of anyone here - is that as well as being on different 'pages' in the way we approach theological debate, we are also operating with different models of interpretation texts.
Hence the frustration some of us feel when a Shipmate simply lobs in some barely digested Bible quotes and says, 'There you are, it's obvious. The Bible says so ...'
Equally, when the rest of us start to him and ha and say, 'Well actually, it can be read and understood differently ...' or 'Your interpretation is in itself conditioned by cultural, historical and socio-political forces ...' it can come across as an unwillingness to commit to any definitive position.
I get accused of that all the time aboard Ship - and from all directions. So I must be doing something right ...
But seriously, I'm not suggesting that anyone here is Neanderthal or dim - but there is clearly a 'talking past each other' thing going on - which is partly a generational thing I think - and partly to do with the metanarrative issues Kwesi has highlighted.
There's an impasse.
I don't think the dialogue is unfruitful though even though the whiff of sulphur seeps through the Ship's decks from the bilge below. Provided we can sniff it when it comes and tar across the planks then it's not a problem.
But I do wonder how much further the discussion can go, particularly when Jamat returns from his Bible study wielding his freshly sharpened cutlass of ready-made proof-texts and 'us and them' tropes.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That's a good question, but it begs a few others in my mind.
Grumpy old man pedantry alert:
No, it RAISES qestions.
Begging the question involves using a premise to support itself.
Raising a question involves simply bringing something up.
Carry on.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Kwesi, as with mr cheesy. Superb. Mature, challenging; inherently, unavoidably, self-deprecatingly rebuking.
Thank you.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Thanks for various messages of support.
A way forward.
In one of his earlier posts, Jamat asks, in reference to an alternative approach to atonement: “That's nice, but how does it affect or transform you?” (p8) I think that is a critical question for us because it asks why does it matter what we believe about the atonement? Is it a mere intellectual exercise or a means of discovering salvation for ourselves and society? Is it a pearl of great price?
My response at the time was to turn the question against PSA (p8), but I think I was mistaken because clearly the doctrine has been transformational in the spiritual experience of Jamat. His adherence to PSA, as far as I understand, has given him an experience of atonement. It’s not my place to question the integrity of his testimony. To my mind, however, he is badly mistaken in his assumption that other spiritual approaches relating to the atonement cannot, therefore, be positively transformational for others. That, of course, has been the source of exasperation with his posts.
Mudfrog has expressed the view that be believes all the theories, though I sense that he regards PSA as foundational, and Gamaliel has tried to find a course that incorporates elements of all the approaches, but is sceptical re PSA. I admire their ecumenical attempts to hold us together. My problem, however, is that both these positions are difficult to sustain because they involve the adoption of mutually exclusive elements, and undermine the integrity and transformational possibilities of different approaches.
Let’s just say that all the approaches are ultimately wrong in an intellectual sense, but justifiable to the extent they have variously enabled individuals to experience atonement. The theories may be hobbled but the outcomes transformational. At present I find the image of Christ as physician and moral influence via Abelard as the most helpful, Christus Victor somewhat dated, and PSA awful. That is not likely to be the position of individuals engaged in spiritual warfare or crushed by the burden of personal sin. Anselm’s emphasis on the need for God’s honour to be satisfied seems less precious when considered not only in the mediaeval context but: “hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth.” That must be both the need for and consequence of atonement. Approaches based on sacrifice and blood leave me bemused, but the experience of being drenched and washed in the Blood of the Lamb have inspired some of the most intimate experiences of being at one with Christ. Attempts at a melange, it seems to me, are not only impossible and unnecessary but weaken their salvic impact.
Sadly, I don’t think this approach will satisfy the monist dogmatists like Jamat, but it might help the rest of us not to allow him to infuriate us. More positively, I think a focus on the transformational objects of the atonement and how various metaphors promote that could be fruitful. We thank Jamat for his prompting.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Thank you for showing the way, leading in this Kwesi.
--------------------
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
I like that, Kwesi and yes, you are right, my own position is probably untenable in the longer term, but I suspect it's indicative of a transitional process that Jamat, in his bluntness, and others have already highlighted ...
As someone with a similar evangelical heritage to Mudfrog, Kaplan and even Jamat to a certain extent, I do find it difficult to throw PSA overboard - and I don't find it particularly repugnant as a model provided it doesn't topple over the line to some kind of almost gleefully vengeful and juridical position - Jonathan Edwards's 'Sinners in the hands of an angry God' anyone?
I do have problems with PSA but I have less problem with the kind of positions held by Mudfrog and Kaplan. Jamat, I find difficult -sorry about that, old chap ... But I'm glad he's around and I admire his zeal and his support for the truth as he sees 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 cliffdweller:
I thought Mr Cheesy was agreeing with me?
He probably was. You were both saying lots of Good Stuff.
--------------------
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
One of my most favourite pieces of music is Allegri's Miserere, illuming as it does, David's penitence in the words of Psalm 51.
I don't believe anyone can make another 'feel' guilty.
I read Psalm 51 - Have mercy, blot out my transgressions, wash away my iniquity, cleanse me from all my sin...
and I feel with him, from my own experience, the crushing weight of wrongdoing - especially when caused to others - and I am also standing with the man who was pointed out by Jesus, beating his breast, not daring to raise his eyes to Heaven as he murmurs, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner.'
Why did I ask this question?
Well not for academic reasons but for pastoral.
Does the atonement grant me mercy, blot out, cleanse and wash my sin, guilt and shame away?
How does it do it?
And where is the assurance that my prayer of penitence and my trust in the blood of Jesus actually does 'cleanse my from all (every) sin' (1 John)?
When someone - anyone - explains to me the doctrine of atonement I want to know that somehow, something has happened.
I want to know that not only has something happened there in front of me, or that something once happened for me; I want to know - I need to know and feel - that something has happened to me.
That God has indeed taken my sin, my shame and my guilt; that he has washed my soul, that he has created a new heart within me.
I want to know that, because I have 'been forgiven much', he will accept the 'much love' I have to pour out to him in adoration and praise.
That's why I asked the question:
I want to know that God has forgiven me.
I want to know what he has done so I can be assured.
[ 14. May 2017, 14:01: 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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
That's why I asked the question:
I want to know that God has forgiven me.
I want to know what he has done so I can be assured.
OK. He's separated you from your sin - as far as the East is from the West. He's forgotten it, doesn't care about it, not worried about it.
There you go, be assured.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
That's why I asked the question:
I want to know that God has forgiven me.
I want to know what he has done so I can be assured.
OK. He's separated you from your sin - as far as the East is from the West. He's forgotten it, doesn't care about it, not worried about it.
There you go, be assured.
Thanks, if only Jesus had known it was that easy.
--------------------
"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
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Thanks, if only Jesus had known it was that easy.
What is easier, to say "your sins are forgiven" or "get up and walk"?
(Matt 9:5, Luke 5:23)
He did know it was that easy.
[ 14. May 2017, 14:26: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
My point is this:
if it were easy for God to just forgive, then why go through the trauma of Gethsemane, the humiliation of the trial, the horror of Calvary with it's hoped-for glimpse of resurrection?
The cross itself suggests very strongly that our redemption, the whole atonement-thing- was far deeper than God wanting to say 'Don't worry, I love you, I'll forgive you.'
Something was going on on the cross at the deepest level - a transaction was being made not a publicity stunt to show the world just-how-far-God-was-willing-to-go.
If Jesus went through that when God could have merely said, 'No worries, all forgiven, don't mention it', then there has to be something amost 'surgical'going on.
The cross either has an effect on the human soul and 'does something' within us, or else it was a pointless, though noble, statement.
So, my question again - beyond God saying 'I forgive you,' what did the cross actually do to me?
[ 14. May 2017, 14:42: 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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
You know, Muddy, I'd agree with all of that. The atonement is about more than forgiveness, because God indeed could simply forgive.
But it wasn't simply forgiveness.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
For me, there's a distinction between it being "easy" for God to forgive and it being "costly."
And I agree that something deeper than "I forgive you" is going, though I would not describe it as a "transaction." A healing is maybe the closest I can get right now.
I'm also a little leery when the whole shebang is tied to the cross. Without diminishing the importance of the cross at all, I think there's more to it. The whole shebang is the incarnation, life, passion, death, resurrection, ascension be reign. They all are at play in God's reconciling work in Christ, it seems to me.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
@Mudfrog. Whatever you feel and think and say it does for you. Just like every one else here.
[ 14. May 2017, 15:01: 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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You know, Muddy, I'd agree with all of that. The atonement is about more than forgiveness, because God indeed could simply forgive.
But it wasn't simply forgiveness.
This is very interesting for many agnostics and doubting atheists, who probably wonder 'why doesn't God just forgive?'. But I tended to think that atonement in part meant at-one-ment, that is overcoming the gap between human and divine. This is not just about sin and purity, is it, but also the boundaries involved, or one might say, inclusion and exclusion? In this light, my old Zen teacher used to say that hell isn't punishment, but training.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You know, Muddy, I'd agree with all of that. The atonement is about more than forgiveness, because God indeed could simply forgive.
But it wasn't simply forgiveness.
Indeed. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You know, Muddy, I'd agree with all of that. The atonement is about more than forgiveness, because God indeed could simply forgive.
But it wasn't simply forgiveness.
This is very interesting for many agnostics and doubting atheists, who probably wonder 'why doesn't God just forgive?'. But I tended to think that atonement in part meant at-one-ment, that is overcoming the gap between human and divine. This is not just about sin and purity, is it, but also the boundaries involved, or one might say, inclusion and exclusion? In this light, my old Zen teacher used to say that hell isn't punishment, but training.
Atonement is better as 'reconciliation.
Paul talks about being at enmity with God.
We were still sinners - transgressors - when Christ died for us to be=ring an end to our enmity, our hostility.
So much more than forgiveness, Jesus was the penalty paid for the wrongdoing that led to the breach of trust and fellowship, the ransom paid for the prisoner (of war?), the healer of the wounds and trauma.
The cross - and the whole incarnation indeed - is more than just a demonstration, an example; it's a real-time sacrifice, it's the swap of prisoners on the bridge, it's the surgeon's knife bringing healing.
Something happens - not just on the cross, but in the human heart too.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My point is this:
if it were easy for God to just forgive, then why go through the trauma of Gethsemane, the humiliation of the trial, the horror of Calvary with it's hoped-for glimpse of resurrection?
Because there's more to salvation than forgiveness.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Some Buddhists see it as the death of the separate ego, which claims its own kingdom, and then sees it turn to ash in the face of its overweening narcissism, mine, mine, mine.
But the annihilation of the separate I can lead to the One.
Other interpretations are available.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My point is this:
if it were easy for God to just forgive, then why go through the trauma of Gethsemane, the humiliation of the trial, the horror of Calvary with it's hoped-for glimpse of resurrection?
Because there's more to salvation than forgiveness.
Yes, that's the whole point of what I'm saying.
God doesn't just forgive - there's a whole lot more to the atonement. It isn't just what God thinks of me, it's what he
does in me.
More than forgiveness - there is healing, redemption, restoration, etc, etc.
Something is done; I am altered.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Some Buddhists see it as the death of the separate ego, which claims its own kingdom, and then sees it turn to ash in the face of its overweening narcissism, mine, mine, mine.
But the annihilation of the separate I can lead to the One.
Other interpretations are available.
That's quite similar to the being 'crucified with Christ' scenario; and the 'It's no longer that lives but Christ that lives in me.
We would agree that the 'old man' has been put to death.
The difference, of course, it seems, is that the Christian would say s/he retains a unique identity and is valued as a person loved by God, remaining so for eternity even in union and fellowship with Jesus.
--------------------
"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
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My point is this:
if it were easy for God to just forgive, then why go through the trauma of Gethsemane, the humiliation of the trial, the horror of Calvary with it's hoped-for glimpse of resurrection?
Because the cross wasn't about forgiveness.
This is crystal clear in the NT: if I can legitimately tell someone "your sins are forgiven" (and let's be clear - the Lord said that we could John 20:23), what connection can there be to the cross?
Constantly bringing the crux of the atonement around to "little old me and my forgiveness" is missing a major part of the Lord's teaching. And practice.
quote:
The cross itself suggests very strongly that our redemption, the whole atonement-thing- was far deeper than God wanting to say 'Don't worry, I love you, I'll forgive you.'
Absolutely and totally nothing to do with it. Seriously. We have the power to forgive people, the text says so, whether or not that individual understands the atonement.
quote:
Something was going on on the cross at the deepest level - a transaction was being made not a publicity stunt to show the world just-how-far-God-was-willing-to-go.
Yes. But it absolutely wasn't a transaction for sin. Because sin was forgiven by the Lord and because we're told we can forgive sins.
quote:
If Jesus went through that when God could have merely said, 'No worries, all forgiven, don't mention it', then there has to be something amost 'surgical'going on.
Or something far far far deeper than worrying about an individual and his sins.
quote:
The cross either has an effect on the human soul and 'does something' within us, or else it was a pointless, though noble, statement.
Again, asking and answering the wrong question. There is clearly more than one alternative to this, see Christus Victor.
quote:
So, my question again - beyond God saying 'I forgive you,' what did the cross actually do to me?
It showed you how to be godly. If you want to be spiritual, if you want to be whole, if you want to be close to God, if you want to be "somebody" in the kingdom, if you want to be healed. If you want to do all those things, here is what you must do, right there: pick up your cross and carry it wherever it leads. Even to a ridiculous death.
And in fairness, there is every indication that you know this, Mudfrog. Sadly it seems that your focus in this aspect of wrong theology is causing you to stress about the wrong things.
Focus on the cross. The one you're carrying. All this other stuff will be swept away.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, of course 'something is done' - I don't think any of us here are 'externalising' the atonement in some way - I think we are all 'internalising' it too - but perhaps in different ways and with different emphases ...
The Eastern Christian tradition has tended to put more emphasis on our union with Christ - our gradual conforming to the divine nature - the whole 'theosis' thing ...
Whereas the West has tended to see it in more transactional terms ...
I don't think either precludes a sense of 'personal engagement' as it were or of something being done - something 'happening' to us and through us ...
However - we have to be careful when it comes to subjective feelings and senses of assurance - although I don't doubt that they happen ...
It also strikes me that even if we do take the view that it was easy - or relatively easy - for God to forgive - that doesn't mean that we are saying that the Cross was anything but brutal, harsh and absolutely appalling ...
We don't diminish the horror and weight of that if we take a different view of it than the standard evangelical PSA one ...
Christ shared our death. He was condemned by a kangaroo court, roughed up, spat at, beaten, whipped - stripped and humiliated and nailed to a tree ...
In some mysterious way he was 'cursed', in some mysterious way he 'became sin for us ...'
I don't think anyone here is saying that the Atonement didn't 'cost' anything ...
But, like Nick Tamen, I am more inclined these days to look at the whole thing - the whole shebang if you like and if I can put it so crudely - Christ's life, teaching, atoning and sacrificial death, his glorious resurrection and ascension.
I'm less inclined to dissect it all up and fillet it into chunks ...
Which is what I've been trying to say all the way through the thread.
I'm no Saint (Big S) and I'm not clear what 'stage' I'm at on Fowler's Stages of Faith - nor am I convinced it's particularly helpful even to think in those terms ...
But I no longer crave 'assurance' ... I can think of times when I have 'felt' that - I can think of times when I have felt bereft of that ...
But it ain't down to me and it ain't down to how I 'feel' about it all ...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating an ice-cold, Spock-like approach to faith - but neither am I proposing the kind of roller-coaster 'am I saved, aren't I saved ...' kind of guilt-trip thing that many young evangelicals go through in their teens and 20's - despite all the best efforts of preachers who preach 'assurance' and all the upbeat hymns and choruses ...
'Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine ...'
Sure, there's a place for all that but it ain't where I'm at now.
My wife has cancer. She's been going through a crisis of faith. She is no longer sure what she does or doesn't believe.
That seems only natural to me and I'm no longer trying to interfere. I'm letting that run its course. However the Atonement 'works' and whatever she or I believe or feel about it isn't going to sorted out as some kind of tick-box exercise.
I'm sure the Almighty isn't fazed by any of this.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
What do we make of the following cases?
Zacchaeus. Were the words of Jesus: “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost,” the imprimatur on an atoning moment? Atonement before the cross?
Julian of Norwich. She seems to have had no sense of personal sin and, therefore, no sense of a need of forgiveness. Yet she had incredibly intense experiences of intimacy with Christ and the sweetness of his blood. Crucicentric, but a very different atonement experience to that described by Mudfrog.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
What do we make of the following cases?
Zacchaeus. Were the words of Jesus: “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost,” the imprimatur on an atoning moment? Atonement before the cross?
Hard to conclude anything other than that Jesus had authority to forgive sins. Before the cross.
quote:
Julian of Norwich. She seems to have had no sense of personal sin and, therefore, no sense of a need of forgiveness. Yet she had incredibly intense experiences of intimacy with Christ and the sweetness of his blood. Crucicentric, but a very different atonement experience to that described by Mudfrog.
Don't know anything about it, so can't comment.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The standard evangelical answer, Kwesi would be that the Cross acts retrospectively and so Zacchaeus and the 'Old Testament saints' alike were all saved by Christ's salvific work upon the Cross ...
I can see that, but as I've said, I no longer like to fillet the whole thing into bite-size chunks.
I like the Orthodox icon of the Harrowing of Hell where Christ strides across a cross-shaped bridge across the gaping gulf of Hell and lifts folk from it.
That will do 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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The standard evangelical answer, Kwesi would be that the Cross acts retrospectively and so Zacchaeus and the 'Old Testament saints' alike were all saved by Christ's salvific work upon the Cross ...
That's kind of ridiculous though. Why bother with the teaching? He might as well have stood on the mount of olives with multitudes around him and cried out "your sins are forgiven!"
If the cross gave Christ the ability to save before it happened, the only possible explanation for keeping it for a very small number of individuals must be Calvinistic predestination. Any other explanation makes no sense.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Something was going on on the cross at the deepest level - a transaction was being made not a publicity stunt to show the world just-how-far-God-was-willing-to-go.
Yes. But it absolutely wasn't a transaction for sin. Because sin was forgiven by the Lord and because we're told we can forgive sins.
DNF. There's more that needs to be done w.r.t. sins than mere forgiveness. We need to be set free from the power of sin, and the power of death, which are in Scripture linked in a "two sides of the same coin" sort of way. Both were destroyed by the Resurrection.
As for the OT saints, they were in captivity waiting for the cross and the resurrection to spring them. It's all in Chrysostom, what do they teach them in these seminaries:
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life.
--------------------
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 mousethief:
DNF. There's more that needs to be done w.r.t. sins than mere forgiveness. We need to be set free from the power of sin, and the power of death, which are in Scripture linked in a "two sides of the same coin" sort of way. Both were destroyed by the Resurrection.
I think it does follow. If God could forgive and release people their sins then he could also free them from the power of their sins.
Christus Victor says that Christ's life death and resurrection has won a victory over the powers, including the power of death. Because of who Christ is. Because of the kind of God that God is: the redeeming God.
quote:
As for the OT saints, they were in captivity waiting for the cross and the resurrection to spring them. It's all in Chrysostom, what do they teach them in these seminaries:
No idea what they teach in seminaries because I've never been to one. Even if I did, it is highly unlikely that I'd learn about John Chrysostom.
quote:
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life.
Yeah. Harrowing of hell doesn't work for me.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
C'mon, even Spurgeon used to quote Chrysostom ...
He's not exactly unknown in the West.
As for the Harrowing of Hell - I'm not sure how 'literally' to take it for it to 'work' but in the context of the Orthodox Easter Vigil it 'works' for me ... It shows the Orthodox emphasis on the Resurrection in action.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
C'mon, even Spurgeon used to quote Chrysostom ...
He's not exactly unknown in the West.
As for the Harrowing of Hell - I'm not sure how 'literally' to take it for it to 'work' but in the context of the Orthodox Easter Vigil it 'works' for me ... It shows the Orthodox emphasis on the Resurrection in action.
Well, I'm not telling you what to believe or who to read as an authority. I'm just saying it doesn't make sense as far as I'm concerned.
If God can forgive anyone he chooses to forgive (and I believe he can, and does, freely forgive anyone who is penitent and forgives others), then no harrowing of hell is necessary. And no backwards effects of the cross is needed.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The idea, of course, is that Christ overcame the power of death by the Resurrection - so that is then applied retrospectively as it were ...
I'm not saying there aren't issues with it, just as there are with the juridical views - but it explains that odd account in the Gospels about dead people coming back to life and wandering around after the Resurrection.
As for the idea of the benefits of the Cross being applied retrospectively, it's what was generally believed and preached in the evangelical circles I moved in ... Just as it was taught that salvation was always by grace through faith - as per the Apostle Paul's observations about the faith of Abraham in Romans. We had to jump through hermeneutical hoops to deal with the Epistle of James, of course.
I'm not particularly advocating any particular view over any others here - simply outlining how these things are seen in certain circles.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
DNF. There's more that needs to be done w.r.t. sins than mere forgiveness. We need to be set free from the power of sin, and the power of death, which are in Scripture linked in a "two sides of the same coin" sort of way. Both were destroyed by the Resurrection.
I think it does follow. If God could forgive and release people their sins then he could also free them from the power of their sins.
This is like saying "God could unite the divine and human natures without becoming incarnate." No. God becoming incarnate and God uniting the divine and human natures are just two ways of saying the same thing. God destroying death from within requires being within death, which requires the incarnation.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
I agree that salvation is about more than forgiveness. And I agree that Jesus talks about and demonstrates God's ability and eagerness to forgive. But to say the cross has nothing to do with forgiveness seems to me to require ignoring other things that Jesus said. For example, if the cross has nothing to do with forgiveness, what do we do with Matthew 26:28, where at the Last Supper Jesus describes the cup as the blood of the covenant, poured out for the forgiveness of sins? There are other places where the NT links the blood of Jesus to forgiveness. I think it's a distortion to make that the whole story, but I also think it's a distortion to omit it from the story.
My take on it is that the cross is a temporal manifestation—an outcropping or intersection of the divine into human history—of an eternal reality. Revelation describes Christ as the Lamb sacrificed or slain from the foundation of the world. The cross is that sacrifice breaking into our history. In the incarnation-cross-resurrection, it seems to me, the Incarnate God does what the Word eternally does—offer himself in love and bring forth life. What exactly is going on is a mystery, but it is, I think, a mystery that undergirds all of our relation to God and a mystery that we are invited into, not to understand but to participate in and experience. And in experiencing it, we find salvation—healing, wholeness, acceptance, welcome, forgiveness (and self-forgiveness), reconciliation, release from bondage, love, abundant life and more.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I agree that salvation is about more than forgiveness. And I agree that Jesus talks about and demonstrates God's ability and eagerness to forgive. But to say the cross has nothing to do with forgiveness seems to me to require ignoring other things that Jesus said. For example, if the cross has nothing to do with forgiveness, what do we do with Matthew 26:28, where at the Last Supper Jesus describes the cup as the blood of the covenant, poured out for the forgiveness of sins? There are other places where the NT links the blood of Jesus to forgiveness. I think it's a distortion to make that the whole story, but I also think it's a distortion to omit it from the story.
My take on it is that the cross is a temporal manifestation—an outcropping or intersection of the divine into human history—of an eternal reality. Revelation describes Christ as the Lamb sacrificed or slain from the foundation of the world. The cross is that sacrifice breaking into our history. In the incarnation-cross-resurrection, it seems to me, the Incarnate God does what the Word eternally does—offer himself in love and bring forth life. What exactly is going on is a mystery, but it is, I think, a mystery that undergirds all of our relation to God and a mystery that we are invited into, not to understand but to participate in and experience. And in experiencing it, we find salvation—healing, wholeness, acceptance, welcome, forgiveness (and self-forgiveness), reconciliation, release from bondage, love, abundant life and more.
This. Exactly.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I agree that salvation is about more than forgiveness. And I agree that Jesus talks about and demonstrates God's ability and eagerness to forgive. But to say the cross has nothing to do with forgiveness seems to me to require ignoring other things that Jesus said. For example, if the cross has nothing to do with forgiveness, what do we do with Matthew 26:28, where at the Last Supper Jesus describes the cup as the blood of the covenant, poured out for the forgiveness of sins? There are other places where the NT links the blood of Jesus to forgiveness. I think it's a distortion to make that the whole story, but I also think it's a distortion to omit it from the story.
My take on it is that the cross is a temporal manifestation—an outcropping or intersection of the divine into human history—of an eternal reality. Revelation describes Christ as the Lamb sacrificed or slain from the foundation of the world. The cross is that sacrifice breaking into our history. In the incarnation-cross-resurrection, it seems to me, the Incarnate God does what the Word eternally does—offer himself in love and bring forth life. What exactly is going on is a mystery, but it is, I think, a mystery that undergirds all of our relation to God and a mystery that we are invited into, not to understand but to participate in and experience. And in experiencing it, we find salvation—healing, wholeness, acceptance, welcome, forgiveness (and self-forgiveness), reconciliation, release from bondage, love, abundant life and more.
This. Exactly.
Yes, I agree with this as well. It seems to nicely express the power, the mystery and a few essential ingredients that make up the way atonement is experienced. I see the atonement (the fact not the theory,) as occurring on the cross. It is from there the 'tetelestai' utterance came. The blood of Jesus is indicative of the giving of his life as mandated in Hebrews 9 and it is this life given as a 'ransom' for many that is the engine of all the benefits such as forgiveness, victory over man's nature, and of course, 'ransom' itself suggests the redemption or buying back of our souls, the change of ownership suggesting that up to that point the Devil had a legal right to our souls, now he has forfeited that right. The exercise of faith can now take it away from him.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Nick Tamen quote:
I agree that salvation is about more than forgiveness. And I agree that Jesus talks about and demonstrates God's ability and eagerness to forgive. But to say the cross has nothing to do with forgiveness seems to me to require ignoring other things that Jesus said.
Could someone clarify for me what the cross had to do with the forgiveness of sins? As I see it Jesus forgave sins on numerous occasions in the course of his ministry. This power arose not from his atoning work on the cross but from his Trinitarian status, that as God he had power on earth to forgive sins. Jesus forgave sins not because of what he did but because of who he was. (A power he exercised as he was being crucified).
At Pentecost Peter regarded the cross not as a means for the forgiveness of sin but as the greatest of sins, i.e. the murder of the Messiah, which threatened to bring down the wrath of God; "Sirs, what shall we do to be saved?" The cross, in other words, is something for which they (we) were (are) responsible and need to be forgiven. The Acts passage concludes:
quote:
"When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
Quite how Peter fits the cross into the process of atonement, I'm not sure, but it offers a perspective that is rather different from others in the New Testament, and is worthy of consideration. Of course, as numerous posts emphasise, the whole business is a mystery, which is why, I suppose, we shouldn't be too dogmatic or one-eyed in these matters.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It strikes me there are two equal and opposite errors we can fall into here - and I'm sure there are others ...
One is to 'isolate' the Cross as if it is some kind of 'stand-alone' aspect ...
The other is to treat it as an add-on extra ...
The same applies to other elements of course, the way we talk about or try to understand the Trinity for instance.
It's very easy to lose equilibrium and balance.
The Cross is literally the 'crux' of the matter - it is 'crucial' - but not in isolation.
Kwesi raises some interesting points about Peter's sermon on the Day of Pentecost. However, they aren't points which are incompatible with the standard evangelical approach and understanding of the Atonement. Back in the day,I heard plenty of sermons and Bible studies how it was 'by the hands of wicked men' that Christ was killed ...
But also how this was by 'God's set purpose and foreknowledge.'
God didn't kill Christ.
People did.
In a sense, 'we' did as we are part of humanity. I know this view point has been challenged upthread but in some sense 'we' were representively 'present' although, of course, not directly involved. And then there's the whole 'It was my sin that held him there ...' thing that you get in popular worship songs and choruses.
More Mystery.
I'm not sure it's possible to fully reconcile all these aspects. It's not a 2D jigsaw puzzle.
Which is why I'm advocating taking the whole thing whole, as it were and so far as is possible - without dismantling all the components to see 'how they work'.
We can see that they work and are given some indications and instructions as to how to appropriate them - as it were - but we won't get to completely look under the bonnet (hood) until we know fully, even as we are fully known.
These are things into which even the angels long to look.
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I agree that salvation is about more than forgiveness. And I agree that Jesus talks about and demonstrates God's ability and eagerness to forgive. But to say the cross has nothing to do with forgiveness seems to me to require ignoring other things that Jesus said. For example, if the cross has nothing to do with forgiveness, what do we do with Matthew 26:28, where at the Last Supper Jesus describes the cup as the blood of the covenant, poured out for the forgiveness of sins? There are other places where the NT links the blood of Jesus to forgiveness. I think it's a distortion to make that the whole story, but I also think it's a distortion to omit it from the story.
I'm sorry if this was intended to be rhetorical, but I don't think this is really a major problem with the view I've outlined.
Clearly at the point where the Last Supper occurred, the crucifixion hadn't occurred yet. So at that point, the disciples are being invited to enter viscerally into the promised covenant via the blood and body of the Lord, which gives forgiveness. Whilst he was there standing amongst them.
I think it is interesting to read this in association with the cup of suffering in Luke 22:42 and see the imagery of drinking and eating as participation in the work of God.
For me, the Last Supper is an invitation to the disciples to commit themselves to the epoch-making agenda of the Kingdom announced by the life, death and resurrection of the Son. In following on from them, we're reminding ourselves that forgiveness is offered by God freely to us, but that the correct response is to submit ourselves to him, even to death on a cross. This is the thing that we're announcing when we take part in the Eucharist: not just that God has forgiven us, but that he is in the process of redeeming all things.
Making the crucifixion about forgiveness only makes sense if one avoids talking about the actions and words of the Lord leading up to it.
quote:
My take on it is that the cross is a temporal manifestation—an outcropping or intersection of the divine into human history—of an eternal reality. Revelation describes Christ as the Lamb sacrificed or slain from the foundation of the world. The cross is that sacrifice breaking into our history. In the incarnation-cross-resurrection, it seems to me, the Incarnate God does what the Word eternally does—offer himself in love and bring forth life. What exactly is going on is a mystery, but it is, I think, a mystery that undergirds all of our relation to God and a mystery that we are invited into, not to understand but to participate in and experience. And in experiencing it, we find salvation—healing, wholeness, acceptance, welcome, forgiveness (and self-forgiveness), reconciliation, release from bondage, love, abundant life and more.
It is so much more than that, and unfortunately this is where the Evangelical understanding of the atonement and works of Christ fall so short. It just isn't about "you" and your personal release from bondage. That's already offered to you by the God who loves you and wants to see the best for you.
It's about upsetting the Karma applecart and breaking the powers and announcing a new kingdom and a new set of priorities and that all the crap that we see is just temporal and will be swept away.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Gamaliel, I agree with you on the importance of not isolating the crucifixion from other elements in the story. Peter’s sermon is particularly helpful because he contrasts the cruelty of the cross that has been engineered by culpable humanity with the Father’s refusal to accept the outcome by imposing the resurrection: “You, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death.” The peroration ends with Peter urging his hearers to receive the Holy Spirit. Thus, the process of atonement is one which involves all persons of the Trinity, as well as giving much greater importance to the resurrection than some crucicentric accounts permit. We are offered a well-integrated perspective both historically and theologically.
I agree, too, that “foreknowledge and deliberate plan” raise problems. Foreknowledge, however, does not necessarily mean one desires the overwhelmingly predictable end, as Jesus, himself, recounts in the parable of the tenants of the vineyard. The greater difficulty is with “deliberate plan” because the sermon rests heavily on human moral culpability for the grotesque impiety of the cross, which would lose its force entirely were the participants mere puppets manipulated by the Father. Furthermore, Luke’s gospel (at least), presents the crucifixion as collusion between evil men in alliance with the devil: Satan, Judas, the religious authorities and the Romans. The danger of a determinist slant is to see God as the author of evil, which i don’t think Luke intended. Perhaps it’s best to see the plan in terms of its desired end rather than an indicative process.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Could someone clarify for me what the cross had to do with the forgiveness of sins? As I see it Jesus forgave sins on numerous occasions in the course of his ministry. This power arose not from his atoning work on the cross but from his Trinitarian status, that as God he had power on earth to forgive sins. Jesus forgave sins not because of what he did but because of who he was. (A power he exercised as he was being crucified).
Exactly this.
quote:
At Pentecost Peter regarded the cross not as a means for the forgiveness of sin but as the greatest of sins, i.e. the murder of the Messiah, which threatened to bring down the wrath of God; "Sirs, what shall we do to be saved?" The cross, in other words, is something for which they (we) were (are) responsible and need to be forgiven. The Acts passage concludes:
quote:
"When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
Quite how Peter fits the cross into the process of atonement, I'm not sure, but it offers a perspective that is rather different from others in the New Testament, and is worthy of consideration. Of course, as numerous posts emphasise, the whole business is a mystery, which is why, I suppose, we shouldn't be too dogmatic or one-eyed in these matters.
I don't see that Peter is asking the crowd to believe in the atoning and forgiving power of the cross at all in that passage.
Unfortunately this verse (and a few others) have been a source of historic antisemitism because of the suggestion that the Jews had somehow committed a crime against God.
The best light I can put onto it is that Peter is inviting those who had participated in the actual events of Holy Week to recognise their mistake, accept the forgiveness offered by God and participate in the Kingdom programme instead.
I don't think we should see this as a general condemnation of Jewish people - and I don't really see the value of the imagery which associates us, individually, with those who did it.
It seems to me that one of the themes of the epistles is the call to participation. To participate, submit, to the project of God. To consider our old motivations and will sacrificed with Christ on the cross, to be new people with a perspective that is more than individual and temporal but looks to see how to participate in the loving project of God in the world via the death of self.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, I wasn't saying otherwise ...
On the issue of how the Cross deals with forgiveness ... well, surely all these things are interlinked?
In the Orthodox understanding, as far as I understand it, the Cross deals with sin and its consequences as the power of sin is broken at the Cross - just as the power of death is - 'trampling down death by death ...'
The Resurrection doesn't then simply put a 'rubber-stamp' on the transaction, as it were, it is an integral part of the whole thing ... and yes, I would agree that certain - but my no means all - evangelical presentations of the Atonement can be weak on the Resurrection ...
As I've said upthread, with certain Big E Evangelicals you get the impression that Christ should have been crucified the moment he was born ...
It's almost as if the rest of the narrative is unimportant - save, perhaps, for some of the End-Times predictions that certain types of evangelical love to speculate and salivate over ...
Ok, that's a caricature ... but you'd be forgiven for getting the impression from some evangelicals that the whole thing is simply about one's own individual salvation and a tick-box list of what's 'sound' ...
People in other traditions are capable of equal and opposite distortions.
--------------------
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
What an excellent, compelling relay. The baton being passed smoothly for whole laps.
--------------------
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
As far as I understand it, the Orthodox link sin and the fear and power of death ... 'Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die ...'
They do indeed see sin and death as interlinked in scripture and the power of both as being broken by the Resurrection (which of course requires the Cross as no death / no Resurrection ...)
As Mousethief put it: 'We need to be set free from the power of sin, and the power of death, which are in Scripture linked in a "two sides of the same coin" sort of way. Both were destroyed by the Resurrection. '
This may not be 'crucicentric' enough for some people - but surely it's another of these both/and things?
You can't have one without the other. You can't have the Cross without the Resurrection. You can't have the Resurrection without the Cross.
It's always tempting to fall back on hymnody ... and I'm reminded of the old Sunday school song which has a verse which runs, 'If you don't bear the Cross / You won't wear a Crown ...'
Or something like that.
So, mr cheesy's emphasis on identification, on participation if you like - is also valid. Why? Because it accommodates those passages and incidents which seem to indicate 'free' forgiveness as it were and human responsibility and also lifts us beyond the purely individualistic into the realm of the corporate and the social ...
Alongside, I would suggest, other possible insights and models - but not necessarily 'instead of' them ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Mr Cheesy
quote:
I don't see that Peter is asking the crowd to believe in the atoning and forgiving power of the cross at all in that passage.
Couldn't agree more.
quote:
Unfortunately this verse (and a few others) have been a source of historic antisemitism because of the suggestion that the Jews had somehow committed a crime against God.
Ethnically speaking, of course, the audience included a significant number of proselytes, Gentiles.
What interests me are the various paradigm shifts in the apportionment of blame for the crucifixion. In the gospels (inc, Luke), the charge sheet is very narrowly focussed: the religious leaders and Judas who have sold out to Satan and the Roman authorities. In Peter's sermon, as we have discussed, culpability is extended by the apostle to Jewish believers of Gentile and Jewish origin. Eventually, the charge sheet is extended to the whole of humanity, so that we find Charles Wesley describing himself as "me who caused his pain: me who him to death pursued." The process of expansion is, perhaps, exemplified by Romans 1-2.
ISTM that most (if not all) interpretations of the cross and resurrection are weakly supported by the biblical record. Dare I include Paul in that? What scriptural authority did he claim for much of his writing. What possible basis is there for Charles Wesley to add himself to the charge sheet? Do you, shipmates, see your names on the list?
I think that somewhere in all this we have to recognise the important influence of the Holy Spirit bearing witness to our spirits, because in trying to articulate the atonement, however insecurely, there are great doses of religious imagination that have uncertain scriptural bases at best and almost none at all in many cases. That is not to say these insights are false but we are in trouble if we seek to anchor them solely in biblical authority. Don't let scripture limit the Witness of Truth!
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
