|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: PSA vs. the rest
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And leo, He MUST have done.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So there's only one valid Atonement theory? And it is ... anything except PSA.
Works for me. Late innovations are perforce suspect.
Interesting twist on the "chronological snobbery" fallacy.
Don't blame me; talk to St. Vincent of Lerins. He asked himself how he could cut through the clutter of competing claims of Christian truth. The rule he came up with is Antiquity, universality, and consensus. What has been believed always, everywhere, by everyone? Nothing, perhaps, is perfect on his scale, but Anselm's heresy fails all three in a pretty big way.
I am quite familiar with the Vincentian Canon, thank you, and also with its limitations.
I'm not sure why you cite Anselm's Satisfaction Theory, since the thread is about PSA, but if you are trying to make the point that Athanasian theosis is the original, and only valid, theory of the atonement, on the basis of its antiquity, you are still stuck with the Ransom Theory, which also has patristic (not to mention scriptural) attestation.
[ 13. December 2014, 20:38: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
]When he died, human nature died; when he rose, human nature rose; when he ascended, human nature ascended. This saves us. quote:
How? And why?
Because what we're saved from is death, and its flipside, sin. His resurrection destroyed the power of death to hold us captive, and therewith, the power of sin likewise (since they are flip sides of the same coin).
Why? Why did he save us? John 3:16 answers that.
You're evading the question. The question at hand-- the underlying question behind EVERY "theory" (really metaphor is a better word) of the atonement is, indeed, "why"-- as in, what is it about the death of Jesus that destroys the power of sin and death?
[ 13. December 2014, 23:28: 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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What coin?
Jumping persimmon 82.
--------------------
"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
That's TOO silly.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
That's TOO silly.
Balderdash 4.0
--------------------
"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
Close but no cigar. But if sustained it does work by downing the ante where I won't go. I might be an idiot but I'm no fool after all.
And Jesus OBVIOUSLY believed - and how could He not? - that He had to fulfil PSA.
Unless your disposition is otherwise. If you won't see it, you won't.
Fine.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I'm not sure why you cite Anselm's Satisfaction Theory, since the thread is about PSA, but if you are trying to make the point that Athanasian theosis is the original, and only valid, theory of the atonement, on the basis of its antiquity, you are still stuck with the Ransom Theory, which also has patristic (not to mention scriptural) attestation.
No, I'm not trying to tout one theory as the only one true theory. I'm not trying to divide the truth up into theories at all. That's the Protestants' job, and they're very good at it. It's not a game I play.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And Jesus OBVIOUSLY believed - and how could He not? - that He had to fulfil PSA.
Again, I can think of no verse in the NT which shows Jesus saying anything that could be considered an allusion to PSA. He alludes to both satisfaction and ransom, but not PSA. If you think otherwise, please give us the reference.
--------------------
"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
All the ones given.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I know we're not allowed to invoke the earliest explicit Christian teaching, by Paul and Junia, but without a sense summed up in the natural, human, implicit penal substitutionary atonement in Jesus thoughts and feelings, edges of broken glass embedded in horror in His and our minds are softened for modern tastes.
Matthew 20:22
"You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said to them. "Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?" "We can," they answered.
Matthew 26:39
Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."
Matthew 26:42
He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done."
Mark 14:36
"Abba, Father," he said, "everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will."
Luke 22:41
He withdrew about a stone's throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed,
Luke 22:42
"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."
John 6:38
For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.
John 18:11
Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Eh? None of that implies penal substitution.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Eh? None of that implies penal substitution.
Exactly.
The clearest most direct statement Jesus gives on the method by which the atonement is accomplished would conform to ransom theory:
Matt. 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
--------------------
"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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And leo, He MUST have done.
done what?
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Of course it does.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
He MUST have thought it, MUST have believed it, MUST have understood it, MUST have felt it.
No? (That's rhetorical).
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And leo, He MUST have done.
done what?
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So, Jesus didn't believe in PSA despite all He said to NOTHING BUT that effect time after time?
He didn't mean it?
He was being 'poetic'. Meeting the culture where it lived but not part of it? Not fully human?
WHERE is Jesus supposed to have expressed a belief in PSA?
Jesus own (alleged, purported) proof texts:
"The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:28)
He came to die instead of us. That's substitution. In the punishment of death. If we hadn't been ransomed what would have happened to us? Do I REALLY have to ask that?
"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matthew 26:28)
He had to die, to be bled to death or sin would not be forgiven but punished with death. That's substitution. That's instead of.
“Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he MUST go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he MUST be killed and on the third day be raised to life.” (Matthew 16:21).
He had to suffer and He had to die. Be punished. Instead of us. To death.
“Why then is it written that the Son of Man MUST suffer much and be rejected?” (Mark 9:12; 9:31; 10:33-34)
Yeah, why?
“Beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself…. ‘This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day’” (Luke 24:26-27, 46).
“It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this MUST be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment” (Luke 22:37).
Ohhhhhh the punishment was by us?
Isaiah 53: Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.
WE projected that on God. Yep. We did. We do. YOU do. But you CAN'T! Therefore ... look at the painted cow elephant. That's not red is it?
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
Despite that He WAS tortured to death instead of us.
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
The WHAT?
and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
WHO did what?
For the transgression of my people he was stricken....
Punished. For OUR sin. INSTEAD of us.
Though he had done no violence ... it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer ...
Who again? Had Him tortured to death?
the Lord makes his life a guilt offering....
Who?
He will bear their iniquities....
As a SUBSTITUTE?
He bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors (verses 4-12).
INSTEAD of many for their sin?
No? Again please don't bother.
Matthew 20:22
"You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said to them. "Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?" "We can," they answered.
Matthew 26:39
Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."
Whose will?
Matthew 26:42
He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done."
Whose?
Mark 14:36
"Abba, Father," he said, "everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will."
Whose?
Luke 22:42
"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."
Whose?
John 6:38
For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.
Whose?
John 18:11
Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"
Who?
No?
Anything and everything but the plain and obvious inference that Jesus HUMANLY drew from His culture of two thousand years? That even He couldn't transcend?
I think you are all so frightened of the inescapable meaning of the time, the raging African bull elephant in the WORDS. Superstitious. That like all allegations in Stalin's Russia: say them and they are true.
As they say in Germany: "Mann soll den Teufel nicht an die wand malen, ..." One should not paint the Devil on the wall.
Warum? (Why?)
"sonst kommt er." - otherwise he comes (Wilhelm Hauff)
Somehow saying the obvious about what Jews believed of their Messiah including in the person, the mind, the thoughts and feelings of the Messiah and His immediate followers makes it so of God?
How ... woodenly literal. How fundamentalist. How frightfully modern.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Not for you. Fine. For the Jews, for Jesus, for Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, for Junia, for the vast majority of Christians for two thousand years.
Not for me of course. I don't believe in PSA for a moment.
But Jesus obviously did. It's impossible that he didn't.
[ 14. December 2014, 20:11: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Obviously, you say. Yet you still haven't demonstrated it.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Sorry, He.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It cannot be to you or any here I'm sure. That's OK. So is it that it's obvious only to me I'm also sure. That's disposition for you.
As ever, we must include those who exclude.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I'm not sure why you cite Anselm's Satisfaction Theory, since the thread is about PSA, but if you are trying to make the point that Athanasian theosis is the original, and only valid, theory of the atonement, on the basis of its antiquity, you are still stuck with the Ransom Theory, which also has patristic (not to mention scriptural) attestation.
No, I'm not trying to tout one theory as the only one true theory. I'm not trying to divide the truth up into theories at all. That's the Protestants' job, and they're very good at it. It's not a game I play.
It’s not a game, and it’s not restricted to Protestants.
It’s called exegesis, and it’s a grown-ups’ activity which involves taking seriously the complexities of the doctrine contained in Christianity’s foundation text – in this case, the many theories (call them metaphors, or facets of truth if you prefer) which are used in expressing the broad teaching of the atonement.
As Oscar Wilde said, “the truth is rarely pure and never simple”, however much we would like to pretend that it were otherwise
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
"The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:28)
He came to die instead of us. That's substitution. In the punishment of death. If we hadn't been ransomed what would have happened to us? Do I REALLY have to ask that?
But this doesn't say "instead of us." It says FOR us. It says as a RANSOM. But "ransom" does not mean "substitution." The two words are not synonymous. If I pay kidnappers a ransom to get my son back, you wouldn't say my money was a substitute for my son. If I worked a shift instead of you at the Co-op, you wouldn't say I ransomed your shift. The two words are just not interchangeable.
quote:
"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matthew 26:28)
He had to die, to be bled to death or sin would not be forgiven but punished with death. That's substitution.
No, it isn't. To give someone something is not to substitute. He gave his life for our salvation. There's nothing of "instead of" in there.
quote:
“Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he MUST go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he MUST be killed and on the third day be raised to life.” (Matthew 16:21).
He had to suffer and He had to die.
Absolutely.
quote:
Be punished.
Well, yes.
quote:
Instead of us.
Does not follow. You are reading PSA into these passages. They all make perfect sense without PSA, and PSA is by no means a necessary consequence of them.
quote:
To death.
True.
quote:
“Why then is it written that the Son of Man MUST suffer much and be rejected?” (Mark 9:12; 9:31; 10:33-34)
Yeah, why?
“Beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself…. ‘This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day’” (Luke 24:26-27, 46).
This says nothing about substitution or even punishment. Nothing. It's simply not there.
quote:
“It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this MUST be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment” (Luke 22:37).
Ohhhhhh the punishment was by us?
This verse doesn't mention punishment. It's not there.
quote:
Isaiah 53: Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.
WE projected that on God. Yep. We did. We do. YOU do. But you CAN'T! Therefore ... look at the painted cow elephant. That's not red is it?
Now this is the old Martin we knew and loved. Completely inscrutable.
quote:
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
Despite that He WAS tortured to death instead of us.
This does not say instead of. It says for. The two are not interchangeable. Instead <> For. Two different words, two different concepts. They may overlap but they are not synonymous, and there is nothing in this verse that says anything about "instead of."
quote:
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
The WHAT?
Ah, now this verse does say punishment! It still doesn't say "instead of" though.
quote:
and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
WHO did what?
For the transgression of my people he was stricken....
Punished. For OUR sin. INSTEAD of us.
It simply does not say "instead of." You are reading that in. You are equating "for" with "instead of" and they are two different concepts.
I'll let somebody else handle the rest of these. I can only reiterate "instead of and for are two different concepts" so many times.
[ 14. December 2014, 22:56: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
No one has satisfactorily explained how the Church got by for 1500 years without PSA.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
No one has satisfactorily explained how the Church got by for 1500 years without PSA.
Which was what I was trying to say by bringing up Vincent of Lerins. Maybe I should have gone for this simpler approach. Thank you.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
(to the queston: "WHERE is Jesus supposed to have expressed a belief in PSA?") Jesus own (alleged, purported) proof texts.
You seem to be confusing PSA with atonement theories. ALL atonement theories contain the notion of "Jesus dying for us" and "Jesus setting us right with God." The texts you noted are not PSA, but, as noted up thread, indicative of the other theories:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
"The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:28)
He came to die instead of us. That's substitution. In the punishment of death. If we hadn't been ransomed what would have happened to us? Do I REALLY have to ask that?
No, that's ransom. Clearly. He ransomed us from Satan's power-- i.e. the force or impact of the atonement was not towards God, but towards Satan. The core, essential "problem of humanity" was not that God's wrath puts us in danger of eternal punishment-- but that we are "trapped and oppressed by spiritual powers beyond our control" (i.e. Satan). Quite a bit different than PSA, actually.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matthew 26:28)
He had to die, to be bled to death or sin would not be forgiven but punished with death. That's substitution. That's instead of.
No, it's satisfaction. Which, again, is quite similar to substitution, but not the same as it. Both are "Godward" theories-- both do posit the core problem is that God's wrath or God's justice puts us in danger of eternal punishment. But substitution (found in Paul's writings, most likely to relate to Gentile audiences) uses judicial imagery whereas satisfaction (used by Jesus, in the book of Hebrews, and occasionally by Paul, probably to relate to Jewish audiences) uses the imagery of the Temple. That is clearly the imagery used here.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
“Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he MUST go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he MUST be killed and on the third day be raised to life.” (Matthew 16:21).
He had to suffer and He had to die. Be punished. Instead of us. To death.
“Why then is it written that the Son of Man MUST suffer much and be rejected?” (Mark 9:12; 9:31; 10:33-34)
Yeah, why?
“Beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself…. ‘This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day’” (Luke 24:26-27, 46).
“It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this MUST be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment” (Luke 22:37).
Ohhhhhh the punishment was by us?
Isaiah 53: Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
He will bear their iniquities....
As a SUBSTITUTE?
He bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors (verses 4-12).
Those are all references to the atonement and to the necessity of the atonement. But none of them specify a theory of the atonement-- they answer the (most important) "Why?" question (i.e. Why do we need a Savior?) but none of these texts happens to address the "how" question (as in "how does Jesus' life, death & resurrection accomplish this?). So you can't put any of these texts into any of the columns.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
He bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors (verses 4-12).
INSTEAD of many for their sin?
No? Again please don't bother.
Matthew 20:22
"You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said to them. "Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?" "We can," they answered.
Matthew 26:39
Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."
Matthew 26:42
He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done."
Whose?
Mark 14:36
"Abba, Father," he said, "everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will."
Luke 22:42
"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."
John 6:38
For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.
John 18:11
Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"
Again, these are all references to the atonement in general but not to any particular theory of the atonement-- i.e. any particular theory of the "how" of it all.
You seem to want to stress the fact that it is God's will in all these verses. Well, yes. The atonement was very much God's will. God wanted it. God became incarnate for it. That's one of several things that all five theories have in common. The fact that it was "in our place"-- again, something all five have in common. You seem to be confusing the common attributes that all five theories of the atonement affirm with PSA, which is a more specific imagery that goes beyond those common elements to suggest a specific method by which the atonement accomplishes that end.
[ 15. December 2014, 04:06: 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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Not for you. Fine. For the Jews, for Jesus, for Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, for Junia, for the vast majority of Christians for two thousand years.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
No one has satisfactorily explained how the Church got by for 1500 years without PSA.
Again, I think we have demonstrated that other theories-- particularly the two Satanward theories (ransom and Christus victor) were the dominant images for most of that 2000 year history in both the Western and Eastern churches (although by different name/nuances in the East).
[ 15. December 2014, 04:10: 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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I'm confusing nothing.
And none of the theories can diminish from the emotional reality felt by Jesus and the vast majority of Christians regardless of 'theory'.
To insist on a late modernist projection does the text disservice. As always.
PSA is the dominant perichoretic, inseperable 'theory' in the text. In the mind of Jesus. Obviously.
A HUMAN one. THE human one. Not divine. The divine transcends it. Obviously.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
To insist on a late modernist projection does the text disservice. As always.
Sorry, but Christus Victor is not a late modernist projection. It's the ancient faith of the church. PSA is an early modernist projection, however. It does not go back 2000 years, or anything like. It's an innovation.
quote:
PSA is the dominant perichoretic, inseperable 'theory' in the text. In the mind of Jesus. Obviously.
It's evident you think so. You have not demonstrated it from the text. Because it's not there, as has been shown by both myself and cliffdweller.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I didn't say CV was modern. I said that insistence that PSA isn't the obvious meaning of the text is. Just like acceptance of slavery and patriarchal heterosexual sexism is. And military service.
[ 15. December 2014, 14:07: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I didn't say CV was modern. I said that insistence that PSA isn't the obvious meaning of the text is.
Nothing you have listed so far indicates PSA. Again, you can find references to substitution in Paul's writings, but none that I'm aware of in Jesus' words, and certainly not in any of the verses you cited.
Again, you really don't seem to understand what atonement theories are about or the distinctions between the different theories. The verses you cited are primary allusions to the elements that all five theories have in common. Things like the fact that the atonement is dealing with the problem of sin, was planned and purposed by God, involves Jesus suffering in our place, and the fact that the atonement changes our relationship with God-- these are all things that are common to all the theories of the atonement, not just PSA. But the specific distinctive elements of PSA-- the things that separate it from the other four theories-- are not found in any of the verses you cited.
It is funny how we see what we expect to see, though. The emphasis on PSA is so pervasive in so many churches, it can be hard to read these familiar verses w/o seeing that they don't say what we think we say.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
No one has satisfactorily explained how the Church got by for 1500 years without PSA.
There's nothing to explain.
As the Puritan John Robinson famously said, "I am verily persuaded that the Lord hath more truth yet to break forth out of his Holy Word".
You can find the same idea in Roman Catholicism, in John Henry Newman's concept of the development of doctrine.
The fact that the church had the doctrine of atonement, including the idea of substitution, for one and a half millennia prior to the emergence of the understanding of PSA as one of its aspects, says nothing one way or the other about the validity of PSA.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I didn't say CV was modern. I said that insistence that PSA isn't the obvious meaning of the text is.
And several posters here have presented evidence that that is not the case. So far the only evidence you have supplied is your own passionate insistence that the texts "obviously" mean what you think they mean-- even though it is obvious only to you.
--------------------
"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
Indeed. And Jesus.
--------------------
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
Martin, you are right in one respect. Religious first century Jews would have been familiar with the idea of placating an angry deity. But they would have been familiar with it as a pagan, not a Jewish, concept. The prophets, and especially Isaiah, were decidedly scathing about pagan understandings of sacrifice, which centred on appeasement rather than covenantal faith. Yes, you can find anthropomorphic understandings of sacrifice in the OT (though these fall short of penal notions), but if you want to find an example of PSA-like concepts in the OT, you must look to the worship of Molech, Not YHWH.
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Indeed. And Jesus.
Not so much.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Martin, you are right in one respect. Religious first century Jews would have been familiar with the idea of placating an angry deity. But they would have been familiar with it as a pagan, not a Jewish, concept. The prophets, and especially Isaiah, were decidedly scathing about pagan understandings of sacrifice, which centred on appeasement rather than covenantal faith. Yes, you can find anthropomorphic understandings of sacrifice in the OT (though these fall short of penal notions), but if you want to find an example of PSA-like concepts in the OT, you must look to the worship of Molech, Not YHWH.
And even that would fit with satisfaction theory, not substitution.
--------------------
"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
Thanks JJ, I need look no further than the thoughts of Jesus. He knew what he was doing. What it felt like. What it looked like. As He said. But only to me of course. That paying a ransom with your life bled out in a long day of penalization for the lives of others is NOT as substitute for them. It's every other form of, metaphor for atonement EXCEPT that.
Despite it seemed that way to the Jew Caiaphas.
And me.
Just the three of us.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
That paying a ransom with your life bled out in a long day of penalization for the lives of others is NOT as substitute for them. It's every other form of, metaphor for atonement EXCEPT that.
No, that particular allusion would be toward-- surprise, surprise-- ransom theory.
For someone who claims to be looking for the "obvious" meaning of the text, what is there about that that is unclear? Not meaning to be snarky, I'm really just having a very hard time figuring out what you're not getting-- or if you're just yanking our collective chains.
--------------------
"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
quote:
originally posted by Martin60
Thanks JJ, I need look no further than the thoughts of Jesus. He knew what he was doing. What it felt like. What it looked like. As He said. But only to me of course. That paying a ransom with your life bled out in a long day of penalization for the lives of others is NOT as substitute for them. It's every other form of, metaphor for atonement EXCEPT that.
Despite it seemed that way to the Jew Caiaphas.
And me.
Just the three of us.
My italics.
Why penalization? It just isn't there in the text. And it's inconceivable that a pious 1st century Jew would have thought in that way. And, of course, as cliffdweller has adequately demonstrated, to die for the sake of of a person, or a nation, or the whole of humankind, is not the same as to die in their place.
--------------------
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
Yeah sure JJ. He paid the PENALTY of our sins. He HAD to suffer greatly for them. He was PUNISHED instead of us. But yeah, every other word in the thesaurus is allowed EXCEPT substitution.
Will penal satisfaction atonement do?
What do you call His realizing on the cross that He was utterly separated from His Father? From God? Tormented in existential horror.
Anything and everything except being punished? Paying a penalty? In our stead? It didn't feel like that?
OK.
Not for anyone but Jesus and me.
I'm fine with that.
--------------------
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
Even the notion of dying "in our place" is not unique to PSA. Many of the other theories can contain that aspect.
For the metaphor to point specifically to PSA you need first off the "Godward" orientation-- that the problem is specifically appeasing the wrath or justice of God. Whereas Martin's example, with it's clear reference to "ransom", is clearly a "Satanward" orientation-- the problem is a slavery to sin/Satan.
Then you need to go further to distinguish PSA from the other "Godward" theory, satisfaction. Several of the verses Martin cited earlier are clearly satisfaction-- having the Godward direction and the "in our place" aspect, but with the image of sacrifice rather than the judicial imagery.
Again, you can find this image in Romans and other Pauline writings but I can't think of anyplace you see Jesus using that image.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Yeah sure JJ. He paid the PENALTY of our sins. He HAD to suffer greatly for them. He was PUNISHED instead of us. But yeah, every other word in the thesaurus is allowed EXCEPT substitution.
Will penal satisfaction atonement do?
What do you call His realizing on the cross that He was utterly separated from His Father? From God? Tormented in existential horror.
Anything and everything except being punished? Paying a penalty? In our stead? It didn't feel like that?
OK.
Not for anyone but Jesus and me.
I'm fine with that.
Again, you are confusing things that are common to ALL or MOST understandings of the atonement with PSA in particular. It's not that we don't believe/affirm most or all of those things, it's that those particular aspects are not the aspects that are distinctive to PSA.
--------------------
"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
@Martin.
But, of course, Jesus was not, in actuality, separated from the Father on the cross. As Psalm 137 points out, we can never be separated from the Father. He is everywhere, physically and metaphorically. But He certainly experienced alienation, was unable to experience the presence of God in a way that, heretofore, had been his whole life.
Actually, this idea, that God turns His back on sin, and by extension of sinners, that the only way of dealing with sin is by punishment, is the central heresy at the heart of PSA.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jude
Shipmate
# 3033
|
Posted
Quoted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
But, of course, Jesus was not, in actuality, separated from the Father on the cross. As Psalm 137 points out, we can never be separated from the Father. He is everywhere, physically and metaphorically. But He certainly experienced alienation, was unable to experience the presence of God in a way that, heretofore, had been his whole life.
Actually, this idea, that God turns His back on sin, and by extension of sinners, that the only way of dealing with sin is by punishment, is the central heresy at the heart of PSA.
I wonder how a loving God can be this same vengeful God. I believe in a God who is perfect and hates sin and one who loves his creation more than we can ever know, but His love is infinite and overcomes everything else.
Posts: 233 | From: A town with four parishes | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
All nice modern rhetoric. How did it FEEL? How DOES it feel?
It's got NOTHING to do with 'theology', with what God required. Of course God isn't vengeful.
We are.
Of course He didn't require an act of penal substitutionary atonement.
We did.
It's what a - the - pre-modern man with a divine person's nature experienced.
That was the story. Prophesied and lived and felt.
How could it possibly not have been?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Martin60, I don't believe there is any evidence that Jesus believed in PSA, in fact, far from it. That is not to say it did not become increasingly clear to him that to persist in his ministry would almost certainly lead to his death. As I have mentioned on other occasions, the parable of the vineyard (Luke 20: 9-19) makes it clear that the owner of the vineyard (God) does not desire the death of his son (Jesus). The death of the son, though inevitable, is demanded by the tenants and not the owner. Jesus himself makes clear in the parable that his death is to be one of martyrdom, the culmination of a long line of persecution of the prophets. It is, incidentally, a theme continued by Stephen at his trial, presumably indicating a view current in the early church. None of this has the remotest connection to PSA or Satisfaction, rather the contrary.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
