|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: One Atonement
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Oops, dunno what happened there. Might I ask a kindly host to delete the redundant post, in the interests of clarity.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What is foundational is the truth behind the intellectual model. Perhaps the question could be approached differently. Could you have PSA without ransom or substitution or the defeat of evil(CV.) I would suggest the answer is no.
I'm starting to wonder if you are really sure about the theories of the atonement, because it isn't clear that you do from what you've written here.
Penal substitutionary atonement obviously has a substitution element, it is there in the name. But it isn't a ransom to Satan and it isn't really a ransom to God. If anything PSA is about paying off the universe (because someone somewhere has to pay the price of sin otherwise there is no justice..). And it is hard to argue that PSA is about the "defeat of evil" as per Christus Victor given that the point of PSA is to pay off a transaction which God is unable to get out of - which dictates that his justice is only true if he punishes someone for sin.
quote:
But then can you have these others without a penal transaction? (bearing in mind that it is a metaphor) In other words, can you have them without Jesus being a sacrifice, a victim and a representative of humanity. Again, I think not though obviously others differ.
Obviously you can have the other theories without a penal transaction, whether or not you think it is true.
quote:
What is the foundational truth of the atonement then? It has to be that Jesus died as a sacrifice, for the sin of humanity and that this was directed and accepted by God and served to deflect his wrath from the benefactors of what Jesus did.
That's just restating your position and then claiming it is the root of the belief all along. Nope.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
In other words, can you have them without Jesus being a sacrifice, a victim and a representative of humanity. Again, I think not though obviously others differ.
I could agree to all that.
quote:
What is the foundational truth of the atonement then? It has to be that Jesus died as a sacrifice, for the sin of humanity and that this was directed and accepted by God and served to deflect his wrath from the benefactors of what Jesus did
It's the bit that I've italicized that is a complete unbiblical non-sequitur. You rightly recognised that this is the heart of PSA,band it is this, not the sacrifice, not the victim good of Christ, not the representative nature of His death, with which I have a problem. It is, in Mr Cheesy's words, complete bollocks. There are, I'm told, 31173 verses in the Bible, and just one of them could be said to support PSA. That's a mighty slender peg on which to hang a foundational doctrine, don't you think?
You dispute what exactly? That God has wrath or that it is deflected? Was the one verse in Is 53? There is plenty of evidence of wrath elsewhere eg Romans 1:18, or 2:5. The logic is that Gods wrath is against sin right? However, in Ro6:6, we see that sin is taken care of by faith in Christ. But how is that possible? Well a fair inference is that the reconciliation we receive in Christ Romans 5:11, does the job. While you will no doubt bang on about penal or non penal as usual, it is hard to see how the wrath was not somehow absorbed by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross so that by our faith in him the faith,Martin 60, of whoever chooses, even the weak ignorant and helpless, we are justified before God. That seems like the gospel to me.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You dispute what exactly? That God has wrath or that it is deflected? Was the one verse in Is 53? There is plenty of evidence of wrath elsewhere eg Romans 1:18, or 2:5. The logic is that Gods wrath is against sin right? However, in Ro6:6, we see that sin is taken care of by faith in Christ. But how is that possible? Well a fair inference is that the reconciliation we receive in Christ Romans 5:11, does the job. While you will no doubt bang on about penal or non penal as usual, it is hard to see how the wrath was not somehow absorbed by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross so that by our faith in him the faith,Martin 60, of whoever chooses, even the weak ignorant and helpless, we are justified before God. That seems like the gospel to me.
I don't think anyone is disputing the right of the creator to be angry at the state of things. The objections to PSA are about the way that it is said that there are inevitable consequences of that wrath - that God must punish the sinner, that there must be a cost and that someone must pay, even if it isn't the person to blame.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Oooh, I will. What right has God got to be angry?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Oooh, I will. What right has God got to be angry?
For a relatively easy answer that then stalls in I think a dead end...
He really, really cares for (among others) the Widow, the Worker, the Alien and the Orphan and they get mistreated (sometimes spectacularly so). Those he loves are being abused and it pisses him off. Which easily explains a wrathful God (and ties in with many of the verses where it's mentioned)
But then need to explain why it seems he could do more, why was the Widow's oil a one off (though the addage about pointing fingers is true here too). And how any wrath associated with the crucifixion helps with that aspect of wrath.
Which is also hard to do.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Mr. Cheesy: ..the right of the creator to be angry at the state of things. The objections to PSA are about the way that it is said that there are inevitable consequences of that wrath - that God must punish the sinner, that there must be a cost and that someone must pay, even if it isn't the person to blame.
The following scripture Gal 3:13, seems pretty clear statement that the cost of not keeping the law is a curse. Yet it is very clear in the NT that no one could do this. Consequently, all were subject to the 'penalty' of this curse. However, the good news is that Christ interposed himself between this cause and the believer in him. Now, as we read in Romans 8:1 there is no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus. But surely, those IN Christ are ONLY the ones who have been redeemed from this curse..the ones whom Christ has become a curse for..a penal substitute for.
Gal 3:13 "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law becoming a curse for us as it is written,'cursed is anyone who is hung upon a tree'."
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Oooh, I will. What right has God got to be angry?
The opposite of anger is not love, it's apathy.
I don't want a God who doesn't care about what's going on as the result of people's sin.
A God without wrath is not loving either.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Again, Jamat, the 'curse' thing can be understood in various ways. What was the 'curse' of the Law? In what way was it a curse? How does Christ deliver us from it? There are lots of ways to understand that - by conquering death, by superseding the old sacrificial system ... By a whole range of things ...
It doesn't reduce easily to a set of sound-bites.
--------------------
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
Mudfrog quote:
The opposite of anger is not love, it's apathy.
I think the opposite of anger is 'delight'.
What I suspect you are looking for, Mudfrog, is the distinction between 'compassion' and 'indifference'.
To my mind, and I think you would agree, the God of Israel is compassionate and not indifferent to the human condition, which means he can be angry and wrathful towards the corrosive consequences of sin and the harm it does to its perpetrators and victims. It seems to me that one of the fallacies of PSA is that it fails to make the crucial distinction between sin and sinners.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Oooh, I will. What right has God got to be angry?
The opposite of anger is not love, it's apathy.
I don't want a God who doesn't care about what's going on as the result of people's sin.
A God without wrath is not loving either.
OK, where, when is God's wrath? Or any other emotion? How does God feel about what He omnipathically ... feels?
--------------------
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:
Gamaliel :, Jamat, the 'curse' thing can be understood in various ways. What was the 'curse' of the Law? In what way was it a curse? How does Christ deliver us from it? There are lots of ways to understand that - by conquering death, by superseding the old sacrificial system ... By a whole range of things
Nah, mate. Few things are as clear or specific as a curse. This curse is contextually defined as being under God's judgement.
You are simply foolish if you think there are a million ways to look at everything that are all equally valid.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Oooh, I will. What right has God got to be angry?
The opposite of anger is not love, it's apathy.
I don't want a God who doesn't care about what's going on as the result of people's sin.
A God without wrath is not loving either.
OK, where, when is God's wrath? Or any other emotion? How does God feel about what He omnipathically ... feels?
Martin 60, if God came along and said to you, I love you enough to seek you out and protect you, you'd get a fright, right? because God isn't supposed to do stuff people might do. But this is exactly what Jesus did when he found Nathaniel in John 2. He said, 'when you were under the fig tree I saw you' and when Nathaniel responded and said He was God's son, Jesus said that he would see greater things. I think you could believe in a GOD like that, I could.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I do Jamat. Not one who is our projection of our feckless worse selves. Full of spite at their own incompetence.
--------------------
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'm not saying there are a million ways to look at everything nor am I saying they are all equally valid.
For instance,at the risk of introducing a tangent, I think that Dispensationalism as a system is spiritually bankrupt and invalid.
I don't have an issue with God's judgement either, nor with the 'curse' mentioned in those verses we've both alluded to as referring to that.
All I am saying is that we need to unpack it and people have come to a range of conclusions on the issue that may differ from yours or mine. I'd like to understand why that is without reaching for febrile value judgements like, 'It's because they don't believe the Bible ...' or 'They are irrelevant ...' which seems to be your standard and default approach to every issue.
--------------------
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
U quote:
iGamaliel: people have come to a range of conclusions on the issue that may differ from yours or mine
Really? If they differ from yours then they are probably right...if you ever, by any chance, commit yourself.
[ 06. May 2017, 08:51: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Oooh, I will. What right has God got to be angry?
The opposite of anger is not love, it's apathy.
I don't want a God who doesn't care about what's going on as the result of people's sin.
A God without wrath is not loving either.
And the manifestation of that care is what?
--------------------
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 commit myself to all sorts of things, Jamat. I'm committedly Trinitarian for instance.
--------------------
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 Gamaliel:
I commit myself to all sorts of things, Jamat. I'm committedly Trinitarian for instance.
Well, if that's what you think that is fine and perhaps you do. As I read you here, you are carefully on every fence in sight.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I only sit on fences where I feel the issue is in dispute or where I have yet to reach a firm and definitive conclusion. That doesn't mean I sit on all the fences there are. Far from it.
There's no fence to sit on as far as Dispensationalism us concerned, for instance ...
Sure, I am on a fence and out in a limb to some extent in terms of church affiliation and overlaps between particular traditions. There are other matters I'd consider secondary or consider in theologumena terms ...
If I've spelt that right ...
But as far as the core Creedal understanding of the faith goes, I'm not fence-sitting on that.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
U quote:
iGamaliel: people have come to a range of conclusions on the issue that may differ from yours or mine
Really? If they differ from yours then they are probably right...if you ever, by any chance, commit yourself.
Commit yourself? This is religion, there's no firm evidence for any position; commitment can only logically be provisional.
[ 07. May 2017, 05:37: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Gamaliel: there's no fence to sit on as far as Dispensationalism us concerned, for instance ...
Well at least that is something you and I can agree on.
I am totally convinced there'll be a rapture.. just don't know when. Make sure there's oil in the lamp when the bridegroom comes.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
U quote:
iGamaliel: people have come to a range of conclusions on the issue that may differ from yours or mine
Really? If they differ from yours then they are probably right...if you ever, by any chance, commit yourself.
Commit yourself? This is religion, there's no firm evidence for any position; commitment can only logically be provisional.
That's one of the reasons I'm not an evolutionist Karl. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Do you mean by that "I don't believe in the scientific evolution of species" or "I don't believe that religion evolves over time" or "I don't believe that human thinking changes and develops"?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Jamat, it's the pre-tribulation rapture business I object to, Jamat.
It's not a question of having oil in our lamps in this instance, more a case of whether we are shining them in the right direction - exploring caves and blind alleys or keeping to the main and steady path.
Yes, it can be fun to explore the side chambers but if we want to get anywhere we need to stick to the main drag.
I'm not interested in 19th century detours and meanderings, I'm interested in the main path.
--------------------
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 Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Oooh, I will. What right has God got to be angry?
The opposite of anger is not love, it's apathy.
Perhaps but that doesn't answer the question. Whatever the opposite of anger is, it doesn't necessarily justify any given bit of anger. If I had no right at all to be angry, that is independent of what the opposite of anger is.
--------------------
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 Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Oooh, I will. What right has God got to be angry?
For a relatively easy answer that then stalls in I think a dead end...
He really, really cares for (among others) the Widow, the Worker, the Alien and the Orphan and they get mistreated (sometimes spectacularly so). Those he loves are being abused and it pisses him off. Which easily explains a wrathful God (and ties in with many of the verses where it's mentioned)
But then need to explain why it seems he could do more, why was the Widow's oil a one off (though the addage about pointing fingers is true here too). And how any wrath associated with the crucifixion helps with that aspect of wrath.
Which is also hard to do.
I should have responded further upstream Jay-Emm. mousethief has picked up on this aspect of the impassibility of God, I infer, I hope correctly. He doesn't care as we care. He doesn't love or get pissed off as we do. Obviously. Because apart from in Jesus and ineffably by the Spirit, He does nothing. And never will as we would. As we say He will. Wrathfully. What use is that now? What use is that when suffering is restituted for all?
--------------------
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:
I infer, I hope correctly. He doesn't care as we care. He doesn't love or get pissed off as we do. Obviously. Because apart from in Jesus and ineffably by the Spirit, He does nothing.
Ah Martin 60, that is because God in Christ has already done everything needed for your miserable life to have hope. He will get pretty upset if you ignore it.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
As He's all I've got, why would I?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
I infer, I hope correctly. He doesn't care as we care. He doesn't love or get pissed off as we do. Obviously. Because apart from in Jesus and ineffably by the Spirit, He does nothing.
Ah Martin 60, that is because God in Christ has already done everything needed for your miserable life to have hope. He will get pretty upset if you ignore it.
Sounds pretty petulant. Like V-ger in the first Star Trek movie shrieking, "Obey me!"
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
I infer, I hope correctly. He doesn't care as we care. He doesn't love or get pissed off as we do. Obviously. Because apart from in Jesus and ineffably by the Spirit, He does nothing.
Ah Martin 60, that is because God in Christ has already done everything needed for your miserable life to have hope. He will get pretty upset if you ignore it.
Ah. The "kissing Hank's arse" version of the Gospel.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
I infer, I hope correctly. He doesn't care as we care. He doesn't love or get pissed off as we do. Obviously. Because apart from in Jesus and ineffably by the Spirit, He does nothing.
Ah Martin 60, that is because God in Christ has already done everything needed for your miserable life to have hope. He will get pretty upset if you ignore it.
Ah. The "kissing Hank's arse" version of the Gospel.
So your version? We are apes with better DNA? Where is the good news there?
--------------------
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
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
I infer, I hope correctly. He doesn't care as we care. He doesn't love or get pissed off as we do. Obviously. Because apart from in Jesus and ineffably by the Spirit, He does nothing.
Ah Martin 60, that is because God in Christ has already done everything needed for your miserable life to have hope. He will get pretty upset if you ignore it.
Ah. The "kissing Hank's arse" version of the Gospel.
So your version? We are apes with better DNA? Where is the good news there?
Yes, Jamat, because your version and your straw man are the only two alternatives.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
I infer, I hope correctly. He doesn't care as we care. He doesn't love or get pissed off as we do. Obviously. Because apart from in Jesus and ineffably by the Spirit, He does nothing.
Ah Martin 60, that is because God in Christ has already done everything needed for your miserable life to have hope. He will get pretty upset if you ignore it.
Ah. The "kissing Hank's arse" version of the Gospel.
So your version? We are apes with better DNA? Where is the good news there?
Yes, Jamat, because your version and your straw man are the only two alternatives.
Hi Nick, I am sorry you feel that way.
Just a thought; have you really, deeply,honestly, been open to actually allowing the Lord to touch YOUR entrenched positions? You see, I have and I am not deeply affected by anything you or others have said here.
My standard is the Bible only. I see no reason to believe, Biblically that it teaches anything about the atonement that I am rejecting by listening to the voices here. I know there will be a number of bleats about acknowledging the presuppositions and assumptions one brings to the questions about it. However, after a number of years here, I think this web site is really, mostly about people playing with the 'God' idea, but with so much sociological and 'Christian' traditional baggage, that any truth is muffled by the static.
I know from previous posts that you are some kind of pastor and I wish you well on your journey.
--------------------
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
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Just a thought; have you really, deeply,honestly, been open to actually allowing the Lord to touch YOUR entrenched positions? You see, I have and I am not deeply affected by anything you or others have said here.
Yes, Jamat. I have been and always am open to that. But that you would ask the question the way you did, together with your other posts, suggests to me that you really haven't understood much of what I and others have been trying to say, and have instead made inaccurate assumptions, perhaps based on your own entrenched positions, about what we are saying.
quote:
I know from previous posts that you are some kind of pastor....
No, I'm a lawyer, not a pastor of any kind.
quote:
...and I wish you well on your journey.
And you on yours.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, Jamat, your standard is the Bible plus the interpretative framework you bring to bear upon it, your tradition if you like ...
That equally applies to the rest of us.
It's just that some of us are more aware of that than you appear to be.
--------------------
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 Gamaliel:
No, Jamat, your standard is the Bible plus the interpretative framework you bring to bear upon it, your tradition if you like ...
That equally applies to the rest of us.
It's just that some of us are more aware of that than you appear to be.
You know, of course that God, the ultimate interpreter, might just have had ways to anticipate you might say that. For instance, by having his metanarrative transmitted by 44 different authors at different times or by having multiple evidence of fulfilled prophecies and maybe by having important stuff repeated by people who didn't necessarily know each other that well or like each other if they did.EG Compare Gal3:13 to 1peter 3:16, and Heb9:14 all of which explore aspects of redemption by mention of Christ's sacrificial, death, shed blood and redemptive actions in a way consistent enough to clearly suggest penal substitution.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
I infer, I hope correctly. He doesn't care as we care. He doesn't love or get pissed off as we do. Obviously. Because apart from in Jesus and ineffably by the Spirit, He does nothing.
Ah Martin 60, that is because God in Christ has already done everything needed for your miserable life to have hope. He will get pretty upset if you ignore it.
Ah. The "kissing Hank's arse" version of the Gospel.
So your version? We are apes with better DNA? Where is the good news there?
You know damned well I don't consider that the gospel, so you can cut the dishonest strawmen. Not that misrepresenting people is at all unusual for creationists.
Your version has little good news anyway. The "good news" is that we can avoid having the shit kicked out of us if we kiss Hank's arse. The problem is Hank wanting to kick the shit out of us in the first place. Where is the good news in the conservative Evangelical belief that most of my family will be - or already are being - eternally tormented in Hell? Where's the good news in this being the fate of the majority of humanity? Where's the good news in a God who is unable to forgive, but must be appeased, propitiated, and sated in his bloodlust?
You've no idea.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I see PSA as complete crap, but I can see how it might have its uses and might even be used by the deity for good.
Without banging the drum again, I think this is just another part of the two-gospel concept. With the angry, self-righteous, self-justifying, hypocritical, and privileged God is angry. With the poor, weak, broken, forgotten, abused God is gentle. If we want to experience the gentle God, it is fairly clear what we have to do.
It seems to me that there isn't a lot of point at raging against the angry God if one feels broken, it's like getting annoyed at an overheard conversation which isn't about you at all.
[ 10. May 2017, 07:30: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Jamat re:
quote:
You know, of course that God, the ultimate interpreter, might just have had ways to anticipate you might say that. For instance, by having his metanarrative transmitted by 44 different authors at different times or by having multiple evidence of fulfilled prophecies and maybe by having important stuff repeated by people who didn't necessarily know each other that well or like each other if they did.EG Compare Gal3:13 to 1peter 3:16, and Heb9:14 all of which explore aspects of redemption by mention of Christ's sacrificial, death, shed blood and redemptive actions in a way consistent enough to clearly suggest penal substitution.
None of those verses even mention penal motivation. How can they "clearly" suggest it.
Answer, because you are already committed in your mind to the idea of PSA. It's part of your worldview. So any time you read in the Scriptures a "mention of Christ's sacrificial, death, shed blood and redemptive actions", you read that as a code for PSA. But it.just.isn't!! These are all clear themes in scripture, backed up certainly tens and possibly hundreds of times. They have specific meanings which are mutually supportive and cross referenced. They are not the same thing as PSA. You have bee repeatedly challenged to bring forth verses or passages that clearly indicate PSA, and all you do is keep recyling verses that have no relevance at all to the point you are trying to, if this is the right word, demonstrate. You can't produce them because they don't exist. PSA is a wonderful self consistent paradigm, a masterful construct, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible. Talk about the triumph of doctrine over truth!
You have been pretty free in your accusations against PSA deniers of bending Biblical truth in order to produce a Gospel more congenial to themselves. I would seriously challenge you to prayerfully consider whether or not, in your zeal, you are doing exactly that of which you accuse others.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
None of those verses even mention penal motivation. How can they "clearly" suggest
OK let's just take Gal 3:13 Christ became a curse for us How could this possibly be true if he was not a penal substitute?
You are the one in denial or blinded to the truth more likely.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
OK let's just take Gal 3:13 Christ became a curse for us How could this possibly be true if he was not a penal substitute?
You are the one in denial or blinded to the truth more likely.
With respect, Jamat, a moment of googling will show you how it is possible to interpret Galatians 3 in the context of a Christus Victor understanding of the atonement.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
You know damned well I don't consider that the gospel
I honestly have no idea what you think the gospel is. You pop up offended by any anything that contradicts an evolutionary mythology. I do not think you can have sin in any Biblical sense if you have an evolutionary framework. AFAI can see, if there is no sin, you do not need a gospel. What is there in naturalistic origins to be saved from?
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
OK let's just take Gal 3:13 Christ became a curse for us How could this possibly be true if he was not a penal substitute?
You are the one in denial or blinded to the truth more likely.
With respect, Jamat, a moment of googling will show you how it is possible to interpret Galatians 3 in the context of a Christus Victor understanding of the atonement.
That is the point. Yep, sure, I pretty well make my living by seeing equally valid interpretations of texts and certainly, you can find a way around anything but if you take into account the whole tenor of the NT, its message and the intent of its authors, then you have a pretty complete picture of the purpose and effect of Jesus'death and what it accomplished.
To say as you seem to 'Oh but it could mean X or you could read it to mean Y is to sidestep authorial intent. Courts do this with statutes, and we get case law but the scriptures are not human statutes.
In its totality, PSA is absolutely lining up with sacrifice, ransom redemption, the defeat of evil in me and ultimately in creation and provides a workable model for the mechanics of salvation viz,
I am without hope because of my sin but I now possess hope because God in Christ took care of my sin problem..he took it on himself. God allowed this. It was his will, the reason Jesus was incarnated in the first place. It was the 'cup' that could not pass till he drank 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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
I infer, I hope correctly. He doesn't care as we care. He doesn't love or get pissed off as we do. Obviously. Because apart from in Jesus and ineffably by the Spirit, He does nothing.
Ah Martin 60, that is because God in Christ has already done everything needed for your miserable life to have hope. He will get pretty upset if you ignore it.
So He's not impassible then?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
That is the point. Yep, sure, I pretty well make my living by seeing equally valid interpretations of texts and certainly, you can find a way around anything but if you take into account the whole tenor of the NT, its message and the intent of its authors, then you have a pretty complete picture of the purpose and effect of Jesus'death and what it accomplished.
You say that as if nobody else here seeks to establish the "whole tenor of the NT". Indeed you seem incapable of appreciating that anyone could have a theology based on the NT but not PSA.
quote:
To say as you seem to 'Oh but it could mean X or you could read it to mean Y is to sidestep authorial intent. Courts do this with statutes, and we get case law but the scriptures are not human statutes.
Really. The original authors intended PSA.. because you say so.
Forgive me for believing things are a tad more complex than just asserting your favourite idea as truth.
quote:
In its totality, PSA is absolutely lining up with sacrifice, ransom redemption, the defeat of evil in me and ultimately in creation and provides a workable model for the mechanics of salvation viz,
As I've clearly said, I believe that's bullshit however many times you assert it.
0+0+0 = 0
quote:
I am without hope because of my sin but I now possess hope because God in Christ took care of my sin problem..he took it on himself. God allowed this. It was his will, the reason Jesus was incarnated in the first place. It was the 'cup' that could not pass till he drank it.
And as I've said before: I believe in Jesus Christ, his life death and resurrection.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
You know damned well I don't consider that the gospel
I honestly have no idea what you think the gospel is.
So you make shit up instead.
quote:
You pop up offended by any anything that contradicts an evolutionary mythology.
Offended? Don't flatter yourself. I find it amazing that in this day and age anyone can be arrogant, ignorant and/or stupid enough to fly in the face of scientific consensus on something as established, evidenced and vindicated over and over again as biological evolution, but that's as far as it goes.
quote:
I do not think you can have sin in any Biblical sense if you have an evolutionary framework. AFAI can see,
And I think that's a pile of dingoes' kidneys.
quote:
if there is no sin, you do not need a gospel. What is there in naturalistic origins to be saved from?
And that is therefore a meaningless question, based on said pile of dingoes' kidneys. And even were your pile of dingoes' kidneys possessed of any validity, it'd still be an argument from consequences.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I do not think you can have sin in any Biblical sense if you have an evolutionary framework.
An evolutionary framework precludes the concepts of greed, anger, lust, selfishness, murder, theft, and so forth?
quote:
AFAI can see, if there is no sin, you do not need a gospel. What is there in naturalistic origins to be saved from?
Even if you were right, which you're not, I think not needing to be saved at all would be pretty good news. It would mean we could stop worrying and just enjoy life.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Whaoh ...
Things are getting a bit heated ...
FWIW, no Jamat, I don't think you are talking 'crap', but I do think you have very little idea of how scripture actually 'works' and how the process of interpretation works.
I'm not suggesting that you are dim or anything of the kind, but you seem to have a very raw and very 'wooden' and two-dimensional (or perhaps even one-dimensional) understanding of the way texts work - be they 'ordinary' ones or sacred ones.
I can certainly see that there is 'good news' in the Gospel according to Jamat, but it also strikes me as a somewhat reductionist one that doesn't cover all the bases because it gets 'stuck' on particular tropes and fixated with certain juridical premisses ...
It'll take you so far, but is necessarily a somewhat truncated or 'blinkered' view because it's not a 3-D version ...
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I do not think you can have sin in any Biblical sense if you have an evolutionary framework.
An evolutionary framework precludes the concepts of greed, anger, lust, selfishness, murder, theft, and so forth?
quote:
AFAI can see, if there is no sin, you do not need a gospel. What is there in naturalistic origins to be saved from?
Even if you were right, which you're not, I think not needing to be saved at all would be pretty good news. It would mean we could stop worrying and just enjoy life.
That's neatly done. It seems true that naturalism doesn't have a problem with sin, therefore requires no solution, whereas theism has, and does. Also, there is the old joke, which I find irresistible, that Christianity found a solution, and then looked for a problem.
However, there is a danger of a false dichotomy here, as I don't think that exhausts the possibilities. I know plenty of people who don't have a metaphysical position really, or a 'world-view', as it's quaintly called.
This includes don't knows, but also probably people like some Buddhists who are neither theists nor naturalists. As for sin, hmm.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
