homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » "There was no other good enough to pay the price of sin" (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: "There was no other good enough to pay the price of sin"
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, lotsa people died on a cross. Not necessary.

None of em were resurrected but.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, but no cross, no resurrection. Are you saying it would have been the same if Christ had died of natural causes, say or in a random accident? Tower falling on top of him as on the 18 in the incident recounted in Luke's Gospel?

--------------------
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
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333

 - Posted      Profile for infinite_monkey   Email infinite_monkey   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I reckon God's response, resurrection, would have been the same. But the point of the cross to me is that HUMANITY'S actions were, well, that. Instead of anything benign or accidental.

--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.

--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com

Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We are valuable in God's eyes, we have been taken prisoner by the devil/sin and we have 'been bought with a price' - not that the devil gets the money. He thought he was, as Jesus died, but the resurrection shows that Jesus having paid the price to ransom many, took the money back at the resurrection.

Stupid devil didn't see that coming! LOL

Now this is interesting - are there two different understandings of PSA?

  1. Where the ransom is required by God
  2. Where the ransom is required by Satan

But the understanding some people have of 'ransom' is unscriptural.

Lutron = the payment to an owner for a slave’s freedom or a captive’s ransom is not used in the Bible for anything like vicarious satisfaction or vicarious atonement to God for sin.

The sixth-century Persian emperor Cyrus conquered Babylon, freed and sent home those Jews taken into captivity by the Babylonians. And Cyrus did it not for price or reward says Isaiah 45:13 Cyrus not only freed them; he didn’t demand any ransom in return.

William Barclay has an excellent chapter on the world lutron in his book New Testament Words.
I quite like that, not that i agree with all of it.

Barclay was no evangelical - evos accuse him of being too 'liberal'.
I summarised it here. This is in the context of Mark 10:45.



--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Well, lotsa people died on a cross. Not necessary. ...

Yebbut. They were neither Son of God nor Incarnate deity.

If someone were to put me to death unjustly and cruelly, I wouldn't like it, but it wouldn't be salvific

[ 07. March 2013, 21:53: Message edited by: Enoch ]

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I read THIS HYMN this morning in my prayers and I quote this verse:

quote:
Bearing shame and scoffing rude,
In my place condemned He stood;
Sealed my pardon with His blood.
Hallelujah! What a Savior!

To know this truth, to recognise what Jesus did for me, just makes me want to praise him and worship him more. To know that he took my place in judgment so that 'there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus' (Romans 8 v 1) is just wonderful.

I can only think that some of those who reject this truth - and even the necessity of the cross - are those who refuse to see they need a Saviour and need someone to atone for and remove their sins.

--------------------
"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      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You might think that, Mudfrog, and I would have said the same at one time, but I'm not sure it's as simple and clear cut as that. Speak to the Orthodox. They regard Christ as Saviour and believe in the atonement and so on but not in the vicarious, penal-substitutionary way that you or that well-known hymn have articulated it.

Are you saying that the Orthodox don't see the need for a Saviour?

That said, in the context of some of the more liberal forms of Protestantism I think you have a case.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You might think that, Mudfrog, and I would have said the same at one time, but I'm not sure it's as simple and clear cut as that. Speak to the Orthodox. They regard Christ as Saviour and believe in the atonement and so on but not in the vicarious, penal-substitutionary way that you or that well-known hymn have articulated it.

Are you saying that the Orthodox don't see the need for a Saviour?

That said, in the context of some of the more liberal forms of Protestantism I think you have a case.

I don't know enough about Orthodoxy to say anything, for or against; and they are certainly not what I meant. There are those, however, who see any atonement theory that actually deals with sin as being offensive. My opinion of that is that it is simply because they do not recognise sin in their own lives, nor do they recognise that God has any reason to have an opinion anbout their so-called sin, even if it did exist.

--------------------
"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      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In any case, it matters not to me which theory one favours over and against another - the truth is, the fact is, that all of them are true because not one of them expresses fully the depth of riches that we see in the cross.

There is not one theory of atonement I cannot accept - I thank God for them all, facets of the 'diamond of salvation' that they are. I cannot afford to ignore or discard any one of them.

One thing I must insist on however, is that the atonement does something forensically with my sin.
It must take it away and not just, say, provide an example of love, or show how victorious Jesus was. It must do something for me, for my sin.

--------------------
"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      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, I can see that, Mudfrog and I don't know enough about the other traditions to say how they deal or don't deal with that aspect.

However, don't you think it's a tad ad-hominem to suggest that people who take a different view of these things 'do not recognise sin in their own lives'?

I don't think I've ever met anyone with a broadly Christian faith position who would claim to be without sin or that sin didn't have an effect in their own life ... even if they defined sin differently to how you're doing here.

That seems a pretty reductionist approach on your part to me.

'They don't understand the atonement in the way that I do therefore they can't be that bothered about sin ...'

Don't get me wrong, I'm not seeking to minimise sin nor its effects. But it seems a bit of a jump to me to suggest that people who don't see things the way you do only do so because of their darkness of their minds or their winking at sin and what-have-you ...

'Do not judge lest ye also be judged ...' and so on.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As an aside, this isn't the only thread where people claim an almost supernatural insight into what other people really think.

I for one am heartily sick of it, especially given that every time someone's said "you say/do that because..." they've been completely and utterly wrong.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mark Betts

Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074

 - Posted      Profile for Mark Betts   Email Mark Betts   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
As an aside, this isn't the only thread where people claim an almost supernatural insight into what other people really think.

Don't I know it! [Projectile]

--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Admittedly I'm not Orthodox, but I'm not convinced by the argument that Orthodoxy has a fundamentally different understanding of atonement.

Some extracts from the Catechism of St Philaret - this dates from the 1830s and so must be well out of copyright.
quote:
207. How does holy Scripture speak of this deliverance?
Of deliverance from sin:
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace". Eph 1:7.
Of deliverance from the curse:
"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law being made a curse for us". Gal 3:13.
Of deliverance from death:
"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that hath the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who, through fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage". Heb 2:14-15.

208. How does the death of Jesus Christ upon the cross deliver us from sin, the curse, and death?
... Therefore as in Adam we had fallen under sin, the curse, and death, so we are delivered from sin, the curse, and death in Jesus Christ. His voluntary suffering and death on the cross for us, being of infinite value and merit, as the death of one sinless, God and man in one person, is both a perfect satisfaction to the justice of God, which had condemned us for sin to death, and a fund of infinite merit, which has obtained him the right, without prejudice to justice, to give us sinners pardon of our sins, and grace to have victory over sin and death.



--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mudfrog quotes a hymn which insists on seeing Jesus as our substitute.

He does not deal with the real problem. A substitute may indeed pay the penalty of sin but one thing a substitute cannot do is to incur the guilt which is associated with a sinful act.

In plain English - guilt cannot be transferred; it can only be forgiven.

IMO Christ's death justifies God in offering us a free forgiveness. Which is very different from saying it justifies us in some way.

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Mark Betts

Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074

 - Posted      Profile for Mark Betts   Email Mark Betts   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Being something of a novice to Orthodoxy, my understanding is that we do not have any problem with the two extracts of St Philaret which Enoch posted.

The problem seems to be with the idea that Christ died for our sins to appease an angry God and pacify His wrath. This would mean that on the cross, the Father and the Son could not be One God. The other issue would be who the Sacrifice would be offered to in heaven - would the Son offer the Sacrifice of Himself to the Father? Again, if that were to be the case we should have serious problems with Trinitarian doctrine.

--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Being something of a novice to Orthodoxy, my understanding is that we do not have any problem with the two extracts of St Philaret which Enoch posted.

The problem seems to be with the idea that Christ died for our sins to appease an angry God and pacify His wrath. This would mean that on the cross, the Father and the Son could not be One God. The other issue would be who the Sacrifice would be offered to in heaven - would the Son offer the Sacrifice of Himself to the Father? Again, if that were to be the case we should have serious problems with Trinitarian doctrine.

You should read some Moltmann then - both |father and Son suffer, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. it is a parody of PSA to say that Jesus appeases an angry God. If that were so, then we would have to be adoptionists.

--------------------
"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
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You should read some Moltmann then - both |father and Son suffer, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. it is a parody of PSA to say that Jesus appeases an angry God. If that were so, then we would have to be adoptionists.

If one follows Moltmann, one becomes patripassionist.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm still trying to figure out what sort of green hills have city walls, or what's special about those which don't. Am I up against doggerel? ......"And try his works to do"- aaaaargh!
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gracious rebel

Rainbow warrior
# 3523

 - Posted      Profile for Gracious rebel     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I'm still trying to figure out what sort of green hills have city walls, or what's special about those which don't. Am I up against doggerel? ......"And try his works to do"- aaaaargh!

You know that 'without' in this context means 'outside'? Does that help?

--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website

Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I'm still trying to figure out what sort of green hills have city walls, or what's special about those which don't. Am I up against doggerel? ......"And try his works to do"- aaaaargh!

An old British tradition it is the words to twist, the grammar to wreck so as the metre to fit.

(I say British rather than English because the worst offender is the Scottish Psalter. The great Fathers of Scottish Presbyterianism: Calvin, Knox and Yoda.)

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
An old British tradition it is the words to twist, the grammar to wreck so as the metre to fit.

(I say British rather than English because the worst offender is the Scottish Psalter. The great Fathers of Scottish Presbyterianism: Calvin, Knox and Yoda.)

The writer of the psalter Scots
His words canna be beaten
Nae Caledonian he, in stead
A Maister was at Eton.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Mudfrog, I agree with you that it's a misunderstanding of PSA to cast it in terms of the appeasement of an angry God - but unfortunately, it's often understood and presented that way by many evangelicals ... particularly those of a more Calvinistic or neo-Calvinistic persuasion.

That said, I'm not entirely sure it's absent across the rest of evangelicalism either ... at least in its more 'populist' form if I can put it that way without sounding elitist.

There are grotesque court-room images and all manner of wierd and wonderful presentations and analogies in popular evangelicalism ... just as there are wierd and wonderful presentations of Catholic doctrine in popular Catholicism ...

It strikes me that we're all walking a tight-rope and trying to express the inexpressible to some extent - and it's very easy with ANY of the atonement models to overstep the mark.

--------------------
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      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Can't imagine where anybody could have gotten that idea.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well yes, that was one of the examples I had in mind, Mousethief.

--------------------
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
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044

 - Posted      Profile for A.Pilgrim   Email A.Pilgrim   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I'm still trying to figure out what sort of green hills have city walls, or what's special about those which don't. Am I up against doggerel? ......"And try his works to do"- aaaaargh!

You know that 'without' in this context means 'outside'? Does that help?
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
An old British tradition it is the words to twist, the grammar to wreck so as the metre to fit.

(I say British rather than English because the worst offender is the Scottish Psalter. The great Fathers of Scottish Presbyterianism: Calvin, Knox and Yoda.)

Perhaps if the hymn had been written by someone Scottish, they would have used the word 'outwith' and saved all the confusion.
Angus

Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
2 of my sons were born on that hill that is 'without' a city wall [Smile]

Let me explain.
In Northern Ireland, the city of Londonderry has walls. Across the River Foyle is a hill called Altnagelvin, the hill of sparrows, and Mrs Alexander could see this hill from the Bishop's house inside the city walls. It was her inspiration for the hymn about a green hill without a city wall.

My boys were born there because there is a large hospital built upon it.

--------------------
"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      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You should read some Moltmann then - both |father and Son suffer, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. it is a parody of PSA to say that Jesus appeases an angry God. If that were so, then we would have to be adoptionists.

If one follows Moltmann, one becomes patripassionist.
I don't believe so, because the Father didn't die on the cross. Only the Son died, but the Father also suffered the loss of his son.

Moltmann suggests "When the crucified Jesus is called 'the image of the invisible God' the meaning is that this is God, and God is like this." (The Crucified God, p205)
For Moltmann, this is not a case of a vengeful Father punishing his innocent Son for, "the Christ event on the cross is a God event...the father suffers the death of his Son...He also suffers the death of his Fatherhood." He also says that the "community" of Father and Son is "expressed precisely at the point of their deepest separation."

This idea of the suffering Father could be set alongside Barth's view that the Judge is himself judged.

This gets rid of the false idea that a wrathful, vengeful Father is smiting his innocent Son.
An idea that NT Wright further overturns with the comment that God didn't condemn his Son, he "condemned sin in the flesh."

--------------------
"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
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
While I understand the desire out of Christian charity to be inclusive and accommodating of different theories of the atonement, I must confess to being sceptical of that position because critical elements in them appear to be mutually exclusive. As far as Mrs Alexander is concerned ISTM that the words under discussion, "pay the price of sin", could be supportive of ransom theories, or, if understood as paying a fine or penalty, as PSA.

I would want to question: "He died that we might be forgiven". After all, Jesus forgave sinners in the course of his ministry prior to the cross. I would also want to suggest that atonement is about "reconciliation", which requires an act by more than one party, whereas forgiveness does not, as demonstrated by Christ's forgiveness of those who crucified him.

Regarding TIAGHFA as a whole I think it's pretty low level stuff in which "suitable for children" has become confused with "infantile"; and we might more profitably concern ourselves with the grown-up theology of hymns like: "Sing, my tongue, the glorious battle.." (Venantius Fortunatus) and "When I survey the wondrous cross..." (Isaac Watts).

On the offending stanza in "All things bright and beautiful" the question is not whether it's included in modern hymnbooks, but whether it was ever included in some hymnbooks and not others. My guess is that the Anglicans would have been less likely to exclude it than Nonconformists, but I stand to be corrected.

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044

 - Posted      Profile for A.Pilgrim   Email A.Pilgrim   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
...
I would want to question: "He died that we might be forgiven". After all, Jesus forgave sinners in the course of his ministry prior to the cross.
...

Jesus’s atoning self-sacrifice on the cross, acting as both High Priest and victim (and the event of the crucifixion was the moment of curse substitution: “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree” (Gal.3:13b ESV)) was the key event for redemption, justification, forgiveness, reconciliation, and salvation in the whole of human history. It was an event within time which had (and has) extra-temporal effect.

It acted prospectively to allow forgiveness for the rest of time until the establishment of the New Creation at the Second Coming, and it acted retrospectively for all time back to the first Creation (or, perhaps more accurately, the Fall). The temple sacrifices of animals prefigured this event, and to answer specifically the point raised by Kwesi, the forgiveness expressed by Jesus during his ministry was done in anticipation of the atonement which he would make on the cross. As the writer to the Hebrews puts it: “...without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” (Heb.9:22) (And the rest of Hebrews 9 and 10 is relevant here as well, especially 9:26 & 28.)

Angus

Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009  |  IP: Logged
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044

 - Posted      Profile for A.Pilgrim   Email A.Pilgrim   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to expand slightly the text of my second paragraph to give a clearer explanation. Please substitute the following:

...the forgiveness expressed by Jesus during his ministry was done in anticipation of the atonement which he would make on the cross – the atonement retrospectively enabled and validated the forgiveness that Jesus had pronounced. This is to fulfil the requirements of the Sinai Covenant law, as noted by the writer to the Hebrews: “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” (Heb.9:22, referring back to Lev.17:11)

Angus

Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's one view. One might say "Under the law there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood, but under grace?"

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That's one view. One might say "Under the law there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood, but under grace?"

but Jesus died 'under the law.'
His was the final Mosaic sacrifice - he was the Lamb of (provided by) God.

He was born under the law in order to redeem those under the law.

Grace started after the resurrection - although many would say that grace is actually seen in the provision of the Lamb.

--------------------
"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
Mark Betts

Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074

 - Posted      Profile for Mark Betts   Email Mark Betts   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
...the forgiveness expressed by Jesus during his ministry was done in anticipation of the atonement which he would make on the cross – the atonement retrospectively enabled and validated the forgiveness that Jesus had pronounced.

I'm not so sure about this - we seem to be telling God what He can and cannot do.

I think it's much more simple - Jesus could forgive sins, because He was God, and had the Authority to do so. This is what all the controversy with the Pharisees was all about - to them, Jesus saying, "Your sins are forgiven you" was the same as Jesus saying He was God.

--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Mark Betts

Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074

 - Posted      Profile for Mark Betts   Email Mark Betts   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
...the forgiveness expressed by Jesus during his ministry was done in anticipation of the atonement which he would make on the cross – the atonement retrospectively enabled and validated the forgiveness that Jesus had pronounced.

I'm not so sure about this - we seem to be telling God what He can and cannot do.

I think it's much more simple - Jesus could forgive sins, because He was God, and had the Authority to do so. This is what all the controversy with the Pharisees was all about - to them, Jesus saying, "Your sins are forgiven you" was the same as Jesus saying He was God.

--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
His was the final Mosaic sacrifice - he was the Lamb of (provided by) God.

Was it Mosaic? Who was the priest who offered this sacrifice? Because Jesus, our Great High Priest who offered himself, is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, not after the order of Aaron.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If one follows Moltmann, one becomes patripassionist.

I don't believe so, because the Father didn't die on the cross. Only the Son died, but the Father also suffered the loss of his son.
I think it depends what one means by 'suffer'.

AIUI, in theo-speak 'suffer' is usually translating the Latin patior (pati, passus sum) which is the root of the word 'passive', and which has the sense of undergoing a change as a result of being acted upon by external influences. In this sense of the word, God cannot suffer because there is no external influence powerful enough to act on Him (the contrary belief being, as leo says, the heresy of Patripassionism or Theopaschitism).

However, that is a rather specialist sense of the word 'suffer'.

I think if we are allowed to use human analogies, we could say that God the Father suffered like Jan Palach (who chose to set himself on fire without external compulsion) while God the Son suffered like Maximilian Kolbe (who did not prevent other people from killing him when he had the opportunity).

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044

 - Posted      Profile for A.Pilgrim   Email A.Pilgrim   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That's one view. One might say "Under the law there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood, but under grace?"

At the risk of re-working what Mudfrog has posted, the grace of God was shown in the process whereby Jesus placed himself under the curse of the law so that those who had been under the curse of the Law no longer were – they were redeemed from the curse of the Law. (Gal.3:13) (And as Mudfrog said, grace was shown in the provision of the redeeming sacrifice.)

To expand the reference I made to Hebrews 9&10, once the redeeming sacrifice had been made as a single once-for all atonement, this grace could then be apprehended by all those who are faithful to Jesus:

(Starting at Heb.9:24, quoting ESV, and with my explanation in sq. brackets) “For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands”,[i.e. the tabernacle, as the high priest did, see context of the preceding verses of Heb.9] “which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself... Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own” [the blood was of bulls and goats] “for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once and after that comes judgment, so Christ having been offered once to bear the sins of many will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.”

Jumping to 10:11: “And every priest stands daily at his service offering repeatedly the same sacrifices which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God... For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.”

And thanks to the grace of God in providing this sacrifice for sins, the position of the Christian believer is explained in 10:19ff:
“Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain” [i.e. the curtain that separated the holy of holies from the rest of the tabernacle or temple] “that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience” [an allusion to the sprinkling with blood by the high priest for cleansing and demonstration of the covenant – see Heb.9:19-21, Lev.14:4 and Ex.24:8] “and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful”

That’s the best I can do, and I don’t really have the time for an in-depth exposition of the first four chapters of Galatians and most of the book of Hebrews. And this is a subject which proves the truth of the saying that you’ll never understand the New Testament if you don’t know the Old Testament.

Incidentally, there are still two questions unanswered in my own mind: firstly is it only Jews that were under the curse of the Law, and if so, where does that leave gentiles? And secondly, on the day of atonement, there were two goats, one sacrificed as a sin-offering, and the other a live goat which bore the iniquities of the people of Israel into the wilderness, so how does that pre-figure the atonement which Jesus accomplished? I’m still working on those...

To respond to Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
His was the final Mosaic sacrifice - he was the Lamb of (provided by) God.

Was it Mosaic? Who was the priest who offered this sacrifice? Because Jesus, our Great High Priest who offered himself, is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, not after the order of Aaron.
The whole of Hebrews chapters 7-10 is a discussion of the Mosaic covenant and sacrificial system, and how it relates to and prefigures the atoning sacrifice of Christ. But you are quite right that Jesus was not a Levitical priest (he could not be, since he was from the tribe of Judah). The requirement for a priest not of the order of Aaron is explained in Hebrews 7, notably v.11: “Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?”(ESV)

To respond to Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
...the forgiveness expressed by Jesus during his ministry was done in anticipation of the atonement which he would make on the cross – the atonement retrospectively enabled and validated the forgiveness that Jesus had pronounced.

I'm not so sure about this - we seem to be telling God what He can and cannot do.
...

I don’t think it’s a case of telling God what he can and cannot do, but rather explaining how God goes about doing what he does. I agree with you that Jesus in claiming to forgive sins was claiming to be God (and representing God the Father), but if on those occasions the sins were forgiven just by Jesus saying so, with no connection at all to any atonement, then why was his atoning sacrifice necessary at all? If God could forgive the sins of the people Jesus spoke to, without any atonement, then why was that not available for everyone else as well? Why did Jesus need to offer himself as an atoning sacrifice, as the book of Hebrews explains, if forgiveness could be granted merely by an authoritative pronouncement? It seems entirely inconsistent for Jesus to forgive the sins of some people merely on an authoritative word, while the sins of others require atonement. My formulation, namely that Jesus’s pronouncement of forgiveness was done in anticipation of the atonement that he would make on the cross, in order to provide the mechanism for that forgiveness, eliminates that inconsistency.

The question comes down to: Why did God the Father require an atoning sacrifice in order to forgive sins? That’s the heart of the point about what God “can and cannot do.” The answer? I haven’t a clue. It’s a mystery. It just seems to be that way from the information that we have at the moment, where we see dimly... When we see God face to face, we may well understand.

It’s a good job that God did provide the sacrifice that would provide the mechanism for forgiveness. Without it we’d all be screwed.

Angus

Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009  |  IP: Logged
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252

 - Posted      Profile for Bran Stark     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
But neither the hymn nor scripture actually say that the price was set by God. Just that God announced it.

Somebody else set a price that God was forced to pay? Then that somebody else is more powerful than God.
But that "somebody else" isn't a person - it's the fact that God is incapable of acting contrary to his nature. I don't think that omnipotence in the Christian sense means that God can perform any string of words we conjure up - it only means that God is capable of doing anything free of contradiction. So God was forced to pay the price only in the same sense that he was "forced" to love us, because an unloving God and an unjust God are equally impossible.

--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!

Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
The whole of Hebrews chapters 7-10 is a discussion of the Mosaic covenant and sacrificial system, and how it relates to and prefigures the atoning sacrifice of Christ. But you are quite right that Jesus was not a Levitical priest (he could not be, since he was from the tribe of Judah). The requirement for a priest not of the order of Aaron is explained in Hebrews 7, notably v.11: “Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?”(ESV)

How can a non-Levitical priest offer a Mosaic sacrifice? Melchizedek didn't offer Mosaic sacrifices because Moses hadn't been born yet. Jesus' sacrifice can't possibly be Mosaic. The quote you quote seems to prove that, not disprove it.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
But neither the hymn nor scripture actually say that the price was set by God. Just that God announced it.

Somebody else set a price that God was forced to pay? Then that somebody else is more powerful than God.
But that "somebody else" isn't a person - it's the fact that God is incapable of acting contrary to his nature.
Now you're trying to have it both ways. The price wasn't set by God, it was set by the way God is? Huh?

--------------------
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      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's stranger than that. It means that God, in the Lord's Prayer and the parable of the unforgiving servant, and reinforced throughout the NT, requires us to do something he cannot by his very nature do - forgive unilaterally out of our own forbearance.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's stranger even than that, I think. It means that both God and the nature of sin are not easily reflected in analogies about 'ordinary' human transactions.

The grace of God (of God's own motion) comes when God (the Son) is made incarnate and lives, suffers and dies for the redemption of humankind, and when God (the Father) sends him, and allows that to happen to him.

The significance of the cross is not just that it is God declaring his will to forgive, but also that God in his own person takes upon himself the cost of delivering humankind from the consequences of sin.

The implication of that is that there is something in the way that sin separates us from God, some 'logical impossibility', which means that the separation cannot simply be removed by God's will to forgive, but also needs God's act of atonement.

In other words there is some way, which isn't totally accessible to human reason, in which it is no more possible for God to remove the consequences of sin by simply saying "I forgive you" than it is possible for God to make something so heavy that he cannot lift it.

Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044

 - Posted      Profile for A.Pilgrim   Email A.Pilgrim   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
BroJames - That seems to me to be an excellent summary - thank you. I think that's the nearest we're going to get.

Mousethief - I think I'm starting to follow your point. Allow me some thinking time to review the evidence. My mind grinds exceeding slow. [Smile]

Karl - I have a hunch, and this is pretty much a guess on my part, that the difference between God forgiving us and the command (expressed also in the parable you refer) for us to forgive others, is that when God is sinned against it is an offence against his ultimate holiness, which is perhaps why the atoning sacrifice is required.

This is not the case when one person sins against another. The personal injury done to the one sinned against, who then needs to forgive, is not going to be to their holiness.

Angus

[Edited for typo]

[ 13. March 2013, 21:13: Message edited by: A.Pilgrim ]

Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
Mousethief - I think I'm starting to follow your point. Allow me some thinking time to review the evidence. My mind grinds exceeding slow. [Smile]

As long as the bits of bone left in the sausage aren't detectible, speed of grinding matters not.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:

The significance of the cross is not just that it is God declaring his will to forgive, but also that God in his own person takes upon himself the cost of delivering humankind from the consequences of sin.

God got ripped off.

We still sin.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
He counted the cost. We're worth it.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660

 - Posted      Profile for Drewthealexander     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
But, Mudfrog, the penalty for sin is death - it is a price, though not in monetary terms.

"The wages of sin is death" - so who is the wage owed to?

You previously said
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...the resurrection shows that Jesus having paid the price to ransom many, took the money back at the resurrection.


Mark - a very interesting question on which the Fathers (as you probably are aware) reflected. Since Scripture never answers that question, I'm inclined to think we should read this as an analogy not to be pressed too far. The point of the analogy is to describe the effect of Christ's death and resurrection rather than the process.

We can have some delightful speculations as to whom the ransom was paid (sin - which Paul personifies perhaps?) but perhaps better to focus, as the NT does, on the outcome.

Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
"The wages of sin is death" - so who is the wage owed to?

The sinner of course. That's how the sentence is set up.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
God removes the consequences of sin, not in some weird, ineffable, inaccessible scale of justice, but in the resurrection and the judgement to come.

The time of the restitution of all things.

Everything else is Babylonian-Judeo-Persian-Roman metaphor.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044

 - Posted      Profile for A.Pilgrim   Email A.Pilgrim   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
The whole of Hebrews chapters 7-10 is a discussion of the Mosaic covenant and sacrificial system, and how it relates to and prefigures the atoning sacrifice of Christ. But you are quite right that Jesus was not a Levitical priest (he could not be, since he was from the tribe of Judah). The requirement for a priest not of the order of Aaron is explained in Hebrews 7, notably v.11: “Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?”(ESV)

How can a non-Levitical priest offer a Mosaic sacrifice? Melchizedek didn't offer Mosaic sacrifices because Moses hadn't been born yet. Jesus' sacrifice can't possibly be Mosaic. The quote you quote seems to prove that, not disprove it.
@Mousethief OK, the understanding that I’ve come to so far is that the requirement for an atoning self-sacrifice performed by Jesus was under the Sinai Covenant (aka Mosaic) Law, while the process by which it was offered did not conform fully to the rituals specified in the Law, for example for it to be performed by a Levitical priest. Some of the consequences of the sacrifice are specified by the Law, such as the cursed status of anyone hanged on a tree Deut.21:22-23 referenced by Gal.3:13.

I guess that a possible challenge to the validity of such a sacrifice is countered by what the author of the book of Hebrews wrote in Heb.7:1-10, pointing out that Melchizedek was superior to all the Levitical priesthood, thus the sacrificial offering made by a priest of the order of Melchizedek will be equally effective (or even more so).

How does that fit with your understanding, MT?

Angus

Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools