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   » Christus Victor, redux (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Christus Victor, redux
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532

 - Posted      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Interesting discussion perhaps, but what on earth has this got to do with Christus Victor and understandings of atonement?

Exactly my point! A question for Clark, who focused so much on ethnicity.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

Even as metaphor it doesn't work. It's heterodox even to the bronze age narrative.

The only way I can make it work, which I'm used to doing now with all pious expressions, no matter how 'distinctive', is that in the instant of creation the inexorable countdown to suffering began.

No evil agent necessary.

Which, as noted above, makes God the author of evil. Now THAT'S heterodox. Open theism offers an orthodox alternative, one consistent with the biblical witness.


quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What am I missing? What was God's intent for creation that was thwarted? What would creation have been like if it hadn't been?

None of us living have ever seen an "unfallen" creation so it's impossible to know what it looks like. But we can get a glimpse of it in Rev. 22.


quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Boyd CANNOT mean evil in any but a strongly figurative sense therefore. He is a clever chap after all.

He is quite clever-- and not at all figurative here. He does indeed mean not just literal evil but a literal and personified evil-- i.e. a literal Satan and literal demons. Quite definitely. See his systematic thesis detailing this, God at War or the shorter version, Satan and the Problem of Evil.. It is quite brilliant, but also makes sense both of the biblical text as well as our experience of the world.

(fyi: I happened to be at the SBL/AAR meeting years ago where Boyd first presented the paper that would later become I]Satan and the Problem of Evil.[/I]. And yes, every objection you've raised here was raised then. Boyd met those challenges with humility and brilliance. I walked away with a whole new paradigm for understanding the world and the biblical narrative, for the first time one that did not involve having to force huge inconsistencies to fit into misshapen pieces or ignore half of Scripture or chalk up huge, important significant questions as "divine mystery". Having a theological paradigm that actually fits with our experience and knowledge of the world has a tremendously freeing and empowering impact on our devotional and spiritual life).


quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

Even so, how did creation thwart God?

"Creation" didn't thwart God. God's intention for creation was (temporarily) thwarted.

[ 19. October 2014, 22:01: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Having a theological paradigm that actually fits with our experience and knowledge of the world has a tremendously freeing and empowering impact on our devotional and spiritual life).

Amen to this - from a fellow advocate of open theism and the warfare worldview.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
God didn't create evil. He created. All creation goes to the bad. It can't not. It's a phase it has to go through. God couldn't not know that.

Satan did NOT deprave the cosmos 13.7 gigayears ago.

Whether there is a spirit realm or not, and Jesus as a man remembered that there was, which has to be good enough for me when push comes to shove, is irrelevant.

I am speaking a language plainly that I cannot understand for you.

Does Satan shave?

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
God didn't create evil. He created. All creation goes to the bad. It can't not. It's a phase it has to go through. God couldn't not know that.

Satan did NOT deprave the cosmos 13.7 gigayears ago.

Whether there is a spirit realm or not, and Jesus as a man remembered that there was, which has to be good enough for me when push comes to shove, is irrelevant.

I am speaking a language plainly that I cannot understand for you.

Does Satan shave?

You really do not need to parse it out like you are speaking to a dim-witted child.... are you under the impression that I am not aware of the classical view you are advocating here? Or that I am unaware that there are large numbers of Christians who ascribe to it? Or is it that you are unaware that there are significant numbers of Christians-- some of them even brilliant thinkers like Boyd-- who depart from that default classical view?

Rest assured, I am quite familiar with the classical perspective you are advocating here and the sway it has held for lo these many centuries. I just happen to disagree with it.

It's nice (I suppose) that you are able to summon up such a rigidly emphatic and dogmatic confidence in this view in the face of the myriad internal and external inconsistencies. I wish you luck with that (only slightly sarcastic there).

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Intelligence has nothing to do with it. It is dispositionally impossible for you. As it was for me for decades. And yes, I find it all axiomatic without any inconsistency whatsoever.

I like Boyd. On this he is irrationally wrong. That cannot be helped. This is what happens when you cling on to an old wineskin stretched way past its limit. Find a new one quick. At the foot of the cross.

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Intelligence has nothing to do with it. It is dispositionally impossible for you.

What is "dispositionally impossible" for me??? What in the world are you talking about???


quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And yes, I find it all axiomatic without any inconsistency whatsoever.

"it all" meaning the classical paradigm of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving God who created a world of evil and suffering? And you find no inconsistency there? Hey, if you've found a consistent answer to the question of theodicy that fits into that paradigm, don't hold back-- several millenia of faithful believers want to know.


quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

I like Boyd. On this he is irrationally wrong. .

He may or may not be wrong, but he is anything but "irrational". It is by far the most rational explanation of reality I have every heard.


quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
That cannot be helped. This is what happens when you cling on to an old wineskin stretched way past its limit.

That's an odd parable to pull out-- given that the classical paradigm you so emphatically trumpet is the obvious "old wineskin", which, arguably, has become stretched to cover the inconsistent patches. Indeed, the primary and most valid objection to the open view is of course not it's "oldness" but rather it's "newness"-- the way it challenges traditional understandings.


quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Find a new one quick. At the foot of the cross.

Circling back again to the OP, I would say that is precisely what the Open view does, and why the "Satanward" atonement theories (ransom and Christus victor) fit so well in an open paradigm.

But again, ymmv.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

I like Boyd. On this he is irrationally wrong.

Just out of curiosity, what is it you like about Boyd? This is a pretty central thesis of his entire theology, so if you dismiss this, I'm not sure what you're left with. Unless you just mean he has a friendly, engaging demeanor (which he does) making him a likeable guy?

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Everything apart from that weird premiss from which everything else does not follow in the slightest.

The premiss is the umbilical necessary to keep attached to the old wineskin-placenta.

It's post hoc. Get rid of it and nothing changes. Except one is no longer bound by a caul of dead narratives.

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You see, Martin, this is what I don't understand here. I had assumed, from most of your posts, that you would, at the very least, be sympathetic to Open Theology. It seems to fit rather neatly with what I perceive as your world view on a variety of issues. Indeed, the whole idea of perichoresis is not a bad summary of the relationship between the creator and His creation, as understood in OT terms.

It's almost as if you have prejudged Boyd, and from that position have worked back to a situation where you reject open theism despite its consistency with your general belief system. I really can't see what the argument is that you have with cliffdweller's actual posting. Your comment on "meeting Jesus at the foot of the cross" suggests, to me, that you have misunderstood her, that in some way you perceive her to be minimising the importance and uniqueness of the whole salvific Christ event. If so, I think the Open Theism you are rejecting is a straw man version of Boyd's thinking.

--------------------
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
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Back to Christus Victor. Dialoguing with people on the Ship about this really drove me back to the Bible on this, and I think I did begin to learn that it's a significant and important aspect of the atonement.

I'm always surprised when people reject PSA on the ostensible lack of textual evidence for it, but then adopt CV. There's one passage (Colossians 2) in the NT that actually exposits CV AFAICT, and even then Paul's description of "nailing the written code" to the cross never seems to be feature much in descriptions of CV.

I think John Stott's view in his magnum opus is right - PSA is the central "exchange" happening at the cross, and the CV is a result that follows. I don't expect that to be a popular view here. (Hello JJ - let's talk about this again. [Biased] )

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870

 - Posted      Profile for Sipech   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think John Stott's view in his magnum opus is right - PSA is the central "exchange" happening at the cross, and the CV is a result that follows. I don't expect that to be a popular view here. (Hello JJ - let's talk about this again. [Biased] )

I'd largely go with that. Though I was wondering which work you meant by Stott's magnum opus? There are several contenders:
  • Basic Christianity
  • The Cross of Christ
  • Evangelical Truth
  • The Radical Disciple
Was it one of these?

--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile

Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012  |  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 Leprechaun:


I'm always surprised when people reject PSA on the ostensible lack of textual evidence for it, but then adopt CV.

The resurrection is all the scriptural warrant CV needs and there's tons of that.

The resurrection is something of a post thought for PSA (hmmmnnn... how should we fit all the resurrection gig in?). Which is ridiculous.

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

I think John Stott's view in his magnum opus is right - PSA is the central "exchange" happening at the cross, and the CV is a result that follows.

CV doesn't need PSA for "what happened on the cross". Sounds like Stott was fishing for "how should we fit the resurrection in?".

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

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  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 cliffdweller:
In an Open paradigm the world as we see it today-- with the inevitability of suffering-- is not the world as God intended it to be, or the world as it will one day be in the New Creation.

I'm not up to scratch on what Open theism is cliff dweller, but in Christian orthodoxy, this is not the world God intended, nor will it be the same in the New Creation. Sounds similar there.

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

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870

 - Posted      Profile for Sipech   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The resurrection is something of a post thought for PSA (hmmmnnn... how should we fit all the resurrection gig in?). Which is ridiculous.

Interesting. I've not heard that posited before. It always seems that with PSA, the atoning for sin is done in the crucifixion while the completion of victory over sin and death is done at the resurrection. i.e. the resurrection is necessary part of PSA.

For CV-only advocates, the resurrection seems superfluous.

--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile

Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7

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

The resurrection is something of a post thought for PSA (hmmmnnn... how should we fit all the resurrection gig in?). Which is ridiculous.

It's one of my biggest problems with evangelical Christianity: that you can go to a church for months and months and months and hear endless sermons on the death but barely a mention of the resurrection.

--------------------
Narcissism.

Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7

 - Posted      Profile for Wood   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The resurrection is something of a post thought for PSA (hmmmnnn... how should we fit all the resurrection gig in?). Which is ridiculous.

Interesting. I've not heard that posited before. It always seems that with PSA, the atoning for sin is done in the crucifixion while the completion of victory over sin and death is done at the resurrection. i.e. the resurrection is necessary part of PSA.

You would think so (and I think any understanding of it that doesn't paint God as a monster requires it), but I remember leading a Bible study on the Atonement with my old church, and looking at all the different models, and watching friends express the opinion that you don't need to talk about the resurrection, it's the death that matters.

I don't think that's a problem necessarily with the position, more with how it is commonly preached in churches.

--------------------
Narcissism.

Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Philip Charles

Ship's cutler
# 618

 - Posted      Profile for Philip Charles   Author's homepage   Email Philip Charles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I find Thomas Robert Malthus an interesting place to start reflecting on the creation. To understand Salvation we must understand the nature of the creation and humankind.
quote:
The idea that the impressions and excitements of this world are the instruments with which the Supreme Being forms matter into mind, and that the necessity of constant exertion to avoid evil and to pursue good is the principal spring of these impressions and excitements, seems to smooth many of the difficulties that occur in a contemplation of human life, and appears to me to give a satisfactory reason for the existence of natural and moral evil, and, consequently, for that part of both, and it certainly is not a very small part, which arises from the principle of population. - T.R. Malthus
Humankind and the creation cannot be made perfect by human effort. Malthus' theory of population was his example of how utopia could collapse, climate change is a modern example. Humankind is imperfect and part of this is sin. The creation is not the way we would like it, but I argue that it is the best universe for us given our imperfections.

Jesus' life, death and resurrection need to be seen against this background.

--------------------
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Posts: 89 | From: Dunedin, NZ | Registered: Jun 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 Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The resurrection is something of a post thought for PSA (hmmmnnn... how should we fit all the resurrection gig in?). Which is ridiculous.

Interesting. I've not heard that posited before. It always seems that with PSA, the atoning for sin is done in the crucifixion while the completion of victory over sin and death is done at the resurrection. i.e. the resurrection is necessary part of PSA.

For CV-only advocates, the resurrection seems superfluous.

How bizarre.

The "victory over sin and death" is the heart of CV and is evidenced by the resurrection of Christ contra sin and death.

What do you think CV is?

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

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870

 - Posted      Profile for Sipech   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The resurrection is something of a post thought for PSA (hmmmnnn... how should we fit all the resurrection gig in?). Which is ridiculous.

Interesting. I've not heard that posited before. It always seems that with PSA, the atoning for sin is done in the crucifixion while the completion of victory over sin and death is done at the resurrection. i.e. the resurrection is necessary part of PSA.

For CV-only advocates, the resurrection seems superfluous.

How bizarre.

The "victory over sin and death" is the heart of CV and is evidenced by the resurrection of Christ contra sin and death.

What do you think CV is?

That's what I understand it to be, but CV-only (as opposed to CV+PSA - which is my view) sees the victory in the crucifixion. i.e. if the victory is achieved there then there is no need for the resurrection. It's merely decorative icing on the cake.

My contention is that both are needed. In the crucifixion Christ was "made sin" so that sin was crucified, atonement made and that the resurrection was where the victory was completed.

--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile

Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If we were to produce straw men stereotypes then PSA and CV would be at opposite ends of the relative importance of the Crucifixion and Resurrection.

Strawman stereotypical PSA-er - Jesus dies on the Cross to pay the penalty for our sin. The Resurrection, hmm, well it could be something about the Father accepting the payment, but, well the payment would have been paid and we'd be saved even if Christ wasn't raised from the dead.

Strawman stereotypical CV-er - Jesus defeated death and sin by rising from the dead, breaking open the gates of Hades to lead the faithful to new life. The Cross, well, I suppose He had to die to be in Hades to break out and rise as victor over death.

Of course, that's deliberately unfair on both sides. But that does tend to be the direction that holding just one model will take one.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 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 Alan Cresswell:
If we were to produce straw men stereotypes then PSA and CV would be at opposite ends of the relative importance of the Crucifixion and Resurrection.

Strawman stereotypical PSA-er - Jesus dies on the Cross to pay the penalty for our sin. The Resurrection, hmm, well it could be something about the Father accepting the payment, but, well the payment would have been paid and we'd be saved even if Christ wasn't raised from the dead.

Strawman stereotypical CV-er - Jesus defeated death and sin by rising from the dead, breaking open the gates of Hades to lead the faithful to new life. The Cross, well, I suppose He had to die to be in Hades to break out and rise as victor over death.

Of course, that's deliberately unfair on both sides. But that does tend to be the direction that holding just one model will take one.

Alan, that simple and eloquent summary gets a [Overused]

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

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  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 Alan Cresswell:
If we were to produce straw men stereotypes then PSA and CV would be at opposite ends of the relative importance of the Crucifixion and Resurrection.

Strawman stereotypical PSA-er - Jesus dies on the Cross to pay the penalty for our sin. The Resurrection, hmm, well it could be something about the Father accepting the payment, but, well the payment would have been paid and we'd be saved even if Christ wasn't raised from the dead.

Strawman stereotypical CV-er - Jesus defeated death and sin by rising from the dead, breaking open the gates of Hades to lead the faithful to new life. The Cross, well, I suppose He had to die to be in Hades to break out and rise as victor over death.

Of course, that's deliberately unfair on both sides. But that does tend to be the direction that holding just one model will take one.

You're redefining the meaning of the word straw man here to mean "holding only one model".

Otherwise I think your definitions are quite accurate. Sipech seems to be confusing the definitions of CV and PSA.

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

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  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 cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

Even as metaphor it doesn't work. It's heterodox even to the bronze age narrative.

The only way I can make it work, which I'm used to doing now with all pious expressions, no matter how 'distinctive', is that in the instant of creation the inexorable countdown to suffering began.

No evil agent necessary.

Which, as noted above, makes God the author of evil. Now THAT'S heterodox.
So how come Isaiah says I create evil ?

--------------------
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
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You're redefining the meaning of the word straw man here to mean "holding only one model".

No, I was using "straw man" as a description of a view that is inaccurate as a tactic to try to win an argument. The inaccuracy in my straw men (well, one of several inaccuracies) is that no one actually holds a single model, even those who would claim they do.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Everything apart from that weird premiss from which everything else does not follow in the slightest.

...It's post hoc. Get rid of it and nothing changes. Except one is no longer bound by a caul of dead narratives.

Actually, again, it is entirely central to his entire systematic theology. Have you actually read any of Boyd's work? Which books? Cuz honestly nothing you're writing seems to even make sense in the context of his work, unless what you've read is the books that aren't really about Open Theism-- The Myth of a Christian Nation, perhaps, or Letters to a Skeptic. Both great books but not detailing his systematic theology.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Back to Christus Victor. Dialoguing with people on the Ship about this really drove me back to the Bible on this, and I think I did begin to learn that it's a significant and important aspect of the atonement.

I'm always surprised when people reject PSA on the ostensible lack of textual evidence for it, but then adopt CV. There's one passage (Colossians 2) in the NT that actually exposits CV AFAICT, and even then Paul's description of "nailing the written code" to the cross never seems to be feature much in descriptions of CV.

As mentioned above, I would agree that there is ample biblical witness to PSA, but would argue that there's far more than just Col. 2 in biblical evidence for Christus victor. I would add 2 Cor. 5:19, Heb. 2:14-15, 18; and 2 Tim. 1:9-10.

If you broaden the question to the whole subset of "Satanward" atonement theories, we find that ransom has a massive amount of Scripture behind it Matt. 20:28, John 8:34, and Heb. 9:15 to name just a few.


quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

I think John Stott's view in his magnum opus is right - PSA is the central "exchange" happening at the cross, and the CV is a result that follows. I don't expect that to be a popular view here. (Hello JJ - let's talk about this again. [Biased] )

As I mentioned upthread, I believe all five primary theories have biblical witness and show us something that is true about the atonement, but I don't quite agree with the way Stott is breaking it down. Making PSA the correct transaction, ignores the whole "directional" piece-- i.e. who is being "moved" or altered by the atonement. Substitution and satisfaction make God the one who is moved, and to me that is the primary drawback of those theories, and why they need to be balanced with the other three. The two "Satanward" atonement images really define the central problem of sin differently and in a way more consistent with what we believe to be true of God.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
In an Open paradigm the world as we see it today-- with the inevitability of suffering-- is not the world as God intended it to be, or the world as it will one day be in the New Creation.

I'm not up to scratch on what Open theism is cliff dweller, but in Christian orthodoxy, this is not the world God intended, nor will it be the same in the New Creation. Sounds similar there.
Exactly. There is much in Open Theism that is a radical rethink and could give one pause, but the element that Martin60 finds so objectionable isn't it. It's very much a biblical view, as well as one that we see in the creeds and historic Christianity.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I take your point, Alan, but to say that something objective happened at the crucifixion does not mean that th particular "something" is PSA. I think that the idea of separating the cross and the resurrection is quite foreign to CV. They are integral parts of the same atonening event. The cross was the battle, the resurrection the victory.

From a CV appoint of view, the important thing about the crucifixion is that it is God at His most powerful, yet inherent in that is that it is also God at His most vulnerable. When Paul wrote about his weakness being God's atrength, he was (unwittingly, maybe) putting his finger on something fundamental to the nature of the redeemed cosmos. Yes, Jesus buys our freedom, but by His obedient sacrifice, not by being punished.

--------------------
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
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm more enamoured with the ideas of Jürgen Moltmann (The Crucified God). I'm not sure if they fall under CV.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As Gamaliel would probably say, LeRoc, both and. CV and Moltmann are far from incompatible.

--------------------
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
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just reviewing some of the "Quotes" file, and came across this post by LeRoc which seems to be appropriate here

I hope that readers here also read Fred C's follow-up post "You have to keep scooping out the boat" which deals with some of the objections also seen here.

If nothing else, you will get the links to Richard Beck, whose blog is excellent for many reasons.

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Just reviewing some of the "Quotes" file, and came across this post by LeRoc which seems to be appropriate here

[Axe murder]

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250

 - Posted      Profile for W Hyatt   Email W Hyatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Even so, how did creation thwart God?

Great question to ponder - thanks!

--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.

Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Even so, how did creation thwart God?

Great question to ponder - thanks!
Really? Seems like a bit of a strawman-- since no one is suggesting that creation could or would or did thwart God.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250

 - Posted      Profile for W Hyatt   Email W Hyatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It very well could be a straw man, but I'm not pondering it as part of a debate. I like coming across novel ways to approach things, and the question gives me just that.

--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.

Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
how so?

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250

 - Posted      Profile for W Hyatt   Email W Hyatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's like the first time I came across the artistic suggestion to try drawing background spaces instead of foreground figures. Or like the first time I learned that it's possible to prove a proposition by assuming its negation. With regard to theodicy, the question prompts me to think about what evil isn't rather than about what it is.

--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.

Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

The resurrection is something of a post thought for PSA (hmmmnnn... how should we fit all the resurrection gig in?). Which is ridiculous.

It's one of my biggest problems with evangelical Christianity: that you can go to a church for months and months and months and hear endless sermons on the death but barely a mention of the resurrection.
Of course, Jesus did give us a regular sacrament for the death but not the resurrection - which does skew the focus somewhat.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

The resurrection is something of a post thought for PSA (hmmmnnn... how should we fit all the resurrection gig in?). Which is ridiculous.

It's one of my biggest problems with evangelical Christianity: that you can go to a church for months and months and months and hear endless sermons on the death but barely a mention of the resurrection.
Of course, Jesus did give us a regular sacrament for the death but not the resurrection - which does skew the focus somewhat.
Good point, Lep.

Great to interact with you again about this, btw. I've always thought the CV thread, for all its gargantuan proportions, showed debate on the Ship at its finest; honest, thoughtful, respectful and, you know, somehow Christian!

--------------------
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
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
cliffdweller. Again, Evil doesn't explain evil. Creation does. There is NO problem of evil.

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

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 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 Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

The resurrection is something of a post thought for PSA (hmmmnnn... how should we fit all the resurrection gig in?). Which is ridiculous.

It's one of my biggest problems with evangelical Christianity: that you can go to a church for months and months and months and hear endless sermons on the death but barely a mention of the resurrection.
Of course, Jesus did give us a regular sacrament for the death but not the resurrection - which does skew the focus somewhat.
Not so. The death is meaningless without the resurrection. Just as the passover meal ( the last supper's original incarnation) is meaningless without the salvation of the Jews from Egypt.

There would be no remembrance if there was no victory. Jesus would simply be another martyr or prophet among many that died for the cause.

If Christ did not rise from the dead, our faith would be in vain ( St Paul's New Revised Evensong Version)

[ 21. October 2014, 10:24: Message edited by: Evensong ]

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

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

The resurrection is something of a post thought for PSA (hmmmnnn... how should we fit all the resurrection gig in?). Which is ridiculous.

It's one of my biggest problems with evangelical Christianity: that you can go to a church for months and months and months and hear endless sermons on the death but barely a mention of the resurrection.
Of course, Jesus did give us a regular sacrament for the death but not the resurrection - which does skew the focus somewhat.
Not so.
Riiight. So which is the sacrament that is about the resurrection?

--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
When I celebrate Communion (being a member of one of those heretical sects that authorise lay presidency) my prayers always include a phrase like "in eating and drinking we remember the Incarnation, Death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ". But, that's because I'm very conscious that it can easily become an ordinance where we eat bread in memory of His body broken for us, drink wine in memory of His blood shed for us and totally forget that it's an ordinance given that we may eat and drink in remembrance of Christ - and that includes all that He did and was, not just the Cross. It's also an ordinance observed in anticipation of the Second Coming.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 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 Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

The resurrection is something of a post thought for PSA (hmmmnnn... how should we fit all the resurrection gig in?). Which is ridiculous.

It's one of my biggest problems with evangelical Christianity: that you can go to a church for months and months and months and hear endless sermons on the death but barely a mention of the resurrection.
Of course, Jesus did give us a regular sacrament for the death but not the resurrection - which does skew the focus somewhat.
Not so.
Riiight. So which is the sacrament that is about the resurrection?
I don't know what your tradition is for the sacrament of the Eucharist Leprachaun but mine is based on the BCP and as such is based on the resurrection and as Alan Creswell has pointed out, includes the entire scope of salvation history in its saying.

Without the resurrection however, it is meaningless.

Perhaps that is not the case with other liturgies but if you're calling the Last Supper a sacrament I would assume you have some sense of the catholic faith as handed down from the earliest times.

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

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870

 - Posted      Profile for Sipech   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The most obvious image (or sacrament, if you will) of the resurrection is baptism. The immersion under the water is symbolic of death and burial, but then we rise up out of the water.

Of course, if you don't have access to a river or large pool and have to resort to sprinkling, then the image is somewhat lost.

In my baptist days, the two parts of the communion were sort of split by the two parts of Easter. So in the breaking of bread we would remember Jesus' death, but in the taking of the grape juice (no wine due to the presence of ex-alcoholics and the desire to not have a divided communion) we took this as a symbol not only of the blood shed, but also of the new life given, which was only possible as a result of the completed victory at the resurrection. So the breaking of the bread was quite memorial in nature but the grape juice was much more celebratory.

Of course, other churches may well do things differently which are no more right or wrong than this. I just found it quite helpful.

--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile

Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
The most obvious image (or sacrament, if you will) of the resurrection is baptism. The immersion under the water is symbolic of death and burial, but then we rise up out of the water.


Well yes, but baptisms tend to be much less regular than communion in my shack at least - praying for more!

Of course Communion liturgies do and should mention the resurrection and return of Christ. But I think the average Christian and church historically has seen it as a sacrament dwelling on the death of Christ. If you are so brilliant at leading the liturgy that you find ways of body and blood recalling the resurrection too - bully for you. I think that's unusual, and the symbolism actually makes it quite difficult.

Anyhoo, the point is that church praxis tends to make us think more about the death than the resurrection in all traditions. Nearly all churches I know have a cross on the wall - very few have an empty tomb. (And when they do, they tend to be rather kitsch.)

--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Though there is a symbolism of an empty cross, that Christ isn't on the Cross but Raised.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 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 Leprechaun:
Anyhoo, the point is that church praxis tends to make us think more about the death than the resurrection in all traditions.

Simply Bullshit.

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

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Riiight. So which is the sacrament that is about the resurrection?
All seven of them, surely. [Biased]

In the specific case of the Eucharist I suppose it depends on one's theology thereof. If one holds that the Eucharist is purely a memorial then it is possible, I suppose, to hold that it is primarily a memorial of Christ's passion. A bit like the Stations of the Cross, the Stabat Mater and the Crucifix.

If one holds, however, that the Eucharist, in some meaningful sense, brings one into contact with the efficacious work of Christ then I think that it is impossible to separate out the incarnation, passion, resurrection, ascension and, for that matter, his coming again in glory. Soteriologically, the acts of Christ are a unity. Like the Roman soldiers on Calvary, either we can have the lot or we can have nothing at all but we cannot divide them. The garment is seamless. The reason that there is no blessing between the liturgy of Maundy Thursday and the first Eucharist of Easter, in some traditions, is to stress this seamlessness in the work of God in Christ.

More generally dying is fairly commonplace. As Avon observes to Vila in Blake's 7, "it's the one thing we all can do". On the other hand Resurrection from the dead is pretty darn unique. I know that in Mark's Gospel John Wayne responds to the death of Christ with the words: "Truly, this man was the Son of God" but by and large the proclamation of the Early Church was "Christ is Risen". We know that during the period of the Acts of the Apostles there were people baptising in the name of John the Baptist and, indeed, the Mandeans of Iraq continue to do so to this day, assuming they have not all by now been slaughtered by embittered Sunni Muslims. I think that the reason that this is treated as a simple good-hearted misunderstanding in the New Testament is that the Christians knew that both John the Baptist and Jesus had died but only one had risen from the dead...

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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