|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Cross
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
mr cheesy: God saves any who recognise their need to be saved. That is actually the core of the Christian message
Maybe it is to you, but it isn't for everyone.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
God's saving grace applies to everyone in my book regardless of whether they recognize their need of salvation or not. It is called objective salvation or grace.
A point is made that crucifixion continues even today. When 148 Kenyans were killed largely for their faith, there is crucifixion. I am sure there are many modern day examples of crucifixion.
This is the good news of Good Friday, and the radical challenge of the resurrection. Jesus, with his broken body, breaks down the walls that divide humanity, and makes us into a new family, children of God. And if we are to remember his death and enter his life, we must take up in a new way the familiar human cross of being a son, a mother, a friend. We must turn to and claim each other––neighbors, strangers, enemies–– and refuse to be separated. Because nobody is outside this family, for whom Jesus was willing to be betrayed into the hands of sinners, and suffer death upon the cross.
[ 05. April 2015, 19:37: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
@George Spigot
N'ah then.
So now we've had a stack of explanations for the significance of the cross, which of these seems the least unlikely to you me ol mate?
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
The covenant was ratified by sacrifice and is maintained by sacrifice. You don't need a penal view for that. God can accept one life on behalf of another without attributing any kind of punishment to it.
The contradiction here:
Sacrifice is one life on behalf of another. (Ok)
Sacrifice is NOT penal. (Says who?)
Any law code anywhere in the world would say it was. The price for sin is and always was from time immemorial in Christian doctrine,contained in the act of Jesus in dying on the cross.
The fact that it may be unfashionable, unpalatable and unaccepted should tell us something about ourselves, we do not accept ourselves as sinners in a Biblical sense as in "All have sinned". IOW, we do not put God's value on sin or see his judgement on ourselves but taken by Christ on himself.
Unless we do we cannot be saved.
The is pretty well the whole argument in the first 8 chapters of Romans.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
The covenant was ratified by sacrifice and is maintained by sacrifice. You don't need a penal view for that. God can accept one life on behalf of another without attributing any kind of punishment to it.
The contradiction here:
Sacrifice is one life on behalf of another. (Ok)
Sacrifice is NOT penal. (Says who?)
What Truman said was that you don't need a penal view, which isn't the same as saying the sacrifices were not penal.
There are lots of perfectly valid viewpoints relating to the sacrificial system that are nothing to do with paying a penalty. Sacrifices could be in thanksgiving, not paying for forgiveness of sins but in thankfulness for sins forgiven. Sacrifices could be signs of covenant faithfulness, and indeed that's possibly the best way to describe the Passover sacrifices - the people repeating the sacrifices in memorial of the great act of salvation in their history, in obedience to their LORD who told them to offer this sacrifice (sound familiar?).
Which provides another way of viewing the Cross. Jesus is the Passover lamb, the blood of which protects us from death (in the same way as the blood on the door posts protected the people of Israel). But, Jesus as the Passover sacrifice is also an expression of the covenant faithfulness of the one offering the sacrifice - God the Father. It is Gods declaration, "I have made my Covenant with you. I am faithful to that covenant", a bit like the rainbow as a sign of the covenant made with the whole of creation not to destroy the world in a flood again.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
The covenant was ratified by sacrifice and is maintained by sacrifice. You don't need a penal view for that. God can accept one life on behalf of another without attributing any kind of punishment to it.
The contradiction here:
Sacrifice is one life on behalf of another. (Ok)
Sacrifice is NOT penal. (Says who?)
What Truman said was that you don't need a penal view, which isn't the same as saying the sacrifices were not penal.
There are lots of perfectly valid viewpoints relating to the sacrificial system that are nothing to do with paying a penalty. Sacrifices could be in thanksgiving, not paying for forgiveness of sins but in thankfulness for sins forgiven. Sacrifices could be signs of covenant faithfulness, and indeed that's possibly the best way to describe the Passover sacrifices - the people repeating the sacrifices in memorial of the great act of salvation in their history, in obedience to their LORD who told them to offer this sacrifice (sound familiar?).
Which provides another way of viewing the Cross. Jesus is the Passover lamb, the blood of which protects us from death (in the same way as the blood on the door posts protected the people of Israel). But, Jesus as the Passover sacrifice is also an expression of the covenant faithfulness of the one offering the sacrifice - God the Father. It is Gods declaration, "I have made my Covenant with you. I am faithful to that covenant", a bit like the rainbow as a sign of the covenant made with the whole of creation not to destroy the world in a flood again.
A view of sacrifice that does involve a life in lieu can possibly be NOT PENAL?
That kind of tiresome hair splitting nonsense is simply self deception.
Consider why Jesus had to die..to forgive yours and my sins right? You personally have stated elsewhere that you self identify as an 'evangelical' but what is your point of difference? Without being set free from the penalty of your sins and sinfulness there isn't one. What is your 'evangelical' gospel? What are you wanting to convert people to see? Without that whatever it is, is 'another' gospel.
There are NOT lots of good ways to view the cross other than Judicial unless Judicial is the basis of all of them. Take the Passover lamb. (You raised it.) The blood of that lamb protected the Hebrews from the angel of death..they avoided judgement, they avoided 'Penalty.' They too were sinners just like the Egyptians right? The blood of the Passover lamb was the key point of difference between Egyptian and Hebrew just like the blood of Christ is the key point of difference between believer and unbeliever. The difference that heads one to heaven and the other to a lost eternity. That is the basis of 'covenant faithfulness'. The church has no covenant incidentally, they are all with the Jews, but the church partakes of covenant blessings but not apart from blood, which is life, Christ's life. There is no covenant in scripture that teaches that forgiveness is possible on ANY other basis than the cross of Christ. God makes no covenant with any sinner apart from his son. The scripture is totally clear. "There is no other name under heaven whereby we can be saved". (Acts 4:12) How did he save us? By dying in our place, by taking our penalty.
What of sacrifices of thanksgiving? Sure they existed in the OT and certainly as David proclaims there is the 'sacrifice' of praise. What though is there to give thanks for if there is not an absolute assurance of sins forgiven? And there is only ONE way this can happen..your king died the death that was due you so you can live.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
A view of sacrifice that does involve a life in lieu can possibly be NOT PENAL?
The key there is you used the phrase in lieu. What if the life given isn't in lieu? And, even if it is, does it need to be in lieu of a penalty imposed as though in a court of law?
quote:
You personally have stated elsewhere that you self identify as an 'evangelical' but what is your point of difference? Without being set free from the penalty of your sins and sinfulness there isn't one. What is your 'evangelical' gospel? What are you wanting to convert people to see? Without that whatever it is, is 'another' gospel.
Yes, I identify as evangelical (no need to include little quotes as though I'm not, thank you very much). That means that central to my faith is the belief that without the crucifiction there is no basis on which I can be saved. That doesn't mean that I consider that there is only one, narrow description of what happened on the Cross, much less a strict adherence to PSA.
What is the gospel? It is far broader and magnificent than some court room transaction where Jesus steps in to pay the fine for my sins.
My gospel is that I was a slave to sin, and on the Cross Christ paid my owner the price to set me free.
My gospel is that I was dead, and in His death and resurrection Jesus lead me up from death into life.
My gospel is that I was lost in the darkness, and on the Cross Christ gave me a light to lead me home.
My gospel is that I was filthy and covered in shit, but the blood of Christ washes me clean.
And, yes, my gospel is that my sins justly condemn me to death, but Christ paid that penalty for me.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Nice tension! Well done Jamat. And Alan.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
There are certainly lots of ways to understand the atonement and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
The 'penal' and juridical aspects, though, have been emphasised in the Latin West rather than the Orthodox East - and it's become pretty apparent to me the more I've read around the subject that St Augustine of Hippo and Anselm wouldn't have understood those aspects in the same way as contemporary evangelicals ... although there are threads that can be traced through from them to Calvin via Aquinas and the medieval Scholastics.
The first 8 chapters of Romans are all about the apostle Paul working out and setting out a view of God's economy, if you like, that would allow Gentiles to come in on a different basis to the old Covenant with Israel and the 'works of the Law' ...
Many scholars have suggested that he'd have been surprised himself at how these ideas were developed and put forward from the 16th century onwards - because the issues he was dealing with in the 1st century weren't the same as those the Protestant Reformers were facing in the 16th.
Also, as I've pointed out on the separate PSA thread, I've been told by native Greek speakers that the 'weight' of the juridical and legalistic language in Romans doesn't appear quite so strong in Greek as it does in Latin and in English.
I can't comment on that, but it's an interesting observation.
The fact remains, though, that much of Romans and the epistle to the Hebrews is all about how Christ 'fulfilled' the requirements of the Law and the language is certainly legalistic in that context ... but that's not all that's going on in these passages, of course.
I think all Christian traditions are agreed that Christ's sacrifice was substitutionary - it's whether it was 'penal' that's the sticking point.
The fact that generations of Christians down the centuries haven't understood it in a post-Reformation, 16th and 17th century type way is interesting - and should give us some pause, I think - even if we do then go on to adopt a version of the post-Reformation 'take' on these things ...
Otherwise, we have to conclude that the Gospel went down the tubes about the turn of the 1st and 2nd centuries and everything went out of kilter until the Reformers put it all back on track 1400 to 1500 years later ...
I'm not convinced that it's as simple as that.
There's also the issue that none of the ancient 'oriental' churches - ie. the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox - which weren't party to the great debates and controversies of the Reformation period appear to take a line on these matters that 'fits' with later Western developments. Why is this, I wonder?
Also, whatever else we may say about it, contemporary Judaisism doesn't seem as fixated with the blood-sacrifice angle as we might expect them to be if we put as much weight on that aspect as most evangelicals tend to.
I'm not saying it's not 'there', simply that whole swathes of Christendom haven't felt the need to frame these things in the way Jamat does. That doesn't mean that Jamat is wrong, necessarily, but it does illustrate that our take on these things depends on our particular traditions - and that what we might see as somehow 'self-evident' from our reading of the scriptures (which is inevitably informed by our tradition/s) isn't necessarily self-evident to anyone else.
It clearly isn't self-evident to the Orthodox. Are we saying that they can see it really but are pretending it's not there?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
A view of sacrifice that does involve a life in lieu can possibly be NOT PENAL?
Obviously it can.
In Aztec mythology the gods needed a regular supply of blood and hearts to keep the sun shining, the rain falling, etc. It didn't matter who got sacrificed, but they needed the blood. If one Aztec volunteers to be sacrificed instead of his son that doesn't mean the underlying logic of the original sacrifice was penal in any way.
Someone's child is drowning. The father prepares to save his child's life at the probable cost of his own; but his brother jumps in instead. In that case, the uncle sacrificed himself in place of the father but nobody was being punished.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
@Jamat. You can also think of sacrifice as brining cleansing from the pollution of sin. Pollution excludes you from the community and from the presence of God. Don't need a view that means someone taking a punishment on your behalf to get that idea (reckon this is the heart of the soteriology of Hebrews for instance).
None of that minimises our sinfulness or its consequences.
Having this broader understanding of the cross has serious missional connotations, so isn't hair splitting. One of the problems missionaries have had in Japan, for instance, is that the locals don't get the idea of penal substitution. It just doesn't resonate. What they do get is the notion that bad behaviour brings shame. The idea of Jesus taking your shame away is something that's more intuitive to the culture.
PSA has its missional value - but if we reckon we've only got one hat to hang we're not doing ourselves any favours. When it comes to thinking about the cross, the hat stand has a number of hooks (seven at least I'd say) 'cos we've got a variety of societies with a variety of sin-related issues that the cross addresses.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The image of being washed in blood is awful. It makes me think of Mel Gibson's obscenely violent version, of which I've seen just enough to know I needed no more than 2 mins to know what I need to know.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
no prophet's flag is set to quote:
The image of being washed in blood is awful
Though I share your fastidiousness, no prophet, ISTM less of a problem if the word "blood" is replaced by the thing for which it is a metaphor i.e. "life"or "spirit" of Christ. Thus, we can talk about being washed in the life of Christ, of being besprinkled with the life of Christ, or speak of "power in the life or spirit of Christ". Of course, there are those who see something magical in Christ's actual blood and object to such demystification, but I'm not one of them.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The image of being washed in blood is awful. It makes me think of Mel Gibson's obscenely violent version, of which I've seen just enough to know I needed no more than 2 mins to know what I need to know.
On the other hand, did you ever see Ben Hur? As I remember it (and it's been a while since I saw the film) there's a line where one of the characters (I forget who) says that Israel needs to be cleansed by blood. The reference is to insurrection. At the end of the film, Christ's blood flows into water which washed lepers who are then cleansed of their disease.
The point I think being made is this. Violence cleanses nothing - sacrifice does.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Of course, there are those who see something magical in Christ's actual blood and object to such demystification, but I'm not one of them.
As the old hymn says:
There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuel’s veins;
And sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains.
I always always thought that was a horrible image.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Regarding the meaning of the cross what are we to make of Peter's sermon at Pentecost? In that sermon Peter told his hearers that they killed God's Messiah, and in response they ask "what are we do to be saved". The implication seems to be that it was the cross that made salvation necessary because human complicity had incurred God's severe judgement. Where does that leave the cross in relation to the various soteriological theories?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Though I share your fastidiousness, no prophet, ISTM less of a problem if the word "blood" is replaced by the thing for which it is a metaphor i.e. "life"or "spirit" of Christ. Thus, we can talk about being washed in the life of Christ, of being besprinkled with the life of Christ, or speak of "power in the life or spirit of Christ". Of course, there are those who see something magical in Christ's actual blood and object to such demystification, but I'm not one of them.
I don't know that I am fastidious, but on this I can't tergiversate.
The blood isn't a metaphor when it is spilled as an actual physical occurrence is it? The requirement in the story, as it is punctiliously told to us, is that actual blood is required from being brutally tortured to death. I don't hear of people washing in the life of Christ, your's is my first hearing of this usage.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The blood is real, it's how it 'works' that is where the metaphorical elements start.
There is a balance in all of this. It often find, though that some evangelicals are far more superstitious than they accuse RCs of being when it comes to how the blood of Christ cleanses us from sin.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The blood is real, it's how it 'works' that is where the metaphorical elements start.
Nicely put
quote:
There is a balance in all of this. It often find, though that some evangelicals are far more superstitious than they accuse RCs of being when it comes to how the blood of Christ cleanses us from sin.
I wasn't sure I followed this (seems to have been written at the end of a long day). Tell me more.
[code]
[ 10. April 2015, 11:50: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Thanks Drew -
What I had in mind was the way the blood of Christ is described/discussed in almost talismanic terms - as if it somehow has 'magical' properties in and of itself.
This is never stated explicitly but it does appear to crop up in some Pentecostal and other charismatic circles - exhortations to 'Plead the Blood' and so on.
At the extreme, among some of the more 'out there' health-wealth groups I've heard explanations about the various wounds of Christ and how they heal this that or the other - that wouldn't sound out of place in some of the freakier forms of medieval or Renaissance mysticism.
Not that I have an issue with mysticism per se, but some of the language can be overly florid and almost sensuous at times.
I think it stems from some of the language used within the Wesleyan tradition which - via Zinzendorf and the Moravians - inherited more mystical language about the wounds and blood of Christ that predated the Reformation - which largely put paid to some of the floridity - for better or for worse.
I must admit, I do find some forms of Reformed piety rather 'reductionist' but at the same time the Wesleyan tradition can become rather florid and overly sentimental - and I say that as someone who is Anglo-Welsh and who has a constant battle between his more reserved English genes and the 'hwyl' of his Welsh side.
I don't know whether that makes any sense ...
I think if one has been exposed to more traditional forms of Pentecostalism, particularly at the more working-class end of the spectrum - then what I say may strike some chords.
The emphasis on 'the blood' and a rather 'realised' - if that's the right word - view of its efficacy isn't unknown elsewhere - you can find it in conservative evangelicalism too - but I dunno - it's not expressed in quite the same way.
Am I making any sense?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Meanwhile - may I congratulate you on your insight, Drew. It was written at the end of a rather long and quite stressful day which involved a flight cancellation and much else besides ...
(Don't ask)
I'm not sure I can cope with too many days like yesterday ...
But, onwards and upward.
I'm trying to think of examples of what I was getting at in order to best illustrate what I mean.
I'm struggling because it's a long while since I was exposed to some of the more fruity and florid teachings and emphases - but I hope I've given something of the flavour.
Going back - and this is well before my time - I've heard (and various Pentecostal writers expressed their disgust at this at the time) that one of the means used to induce glossolalia was to get people to 'plead the blood'.
This led to the practice of people literally repeating the phrase 'the Blood, the Blood, the Blood, the Blood ...' which, with increasing frequency and volume would become, 'theBloodtheBloodtheBlood ...' at which point whoever was presiding would declare, 'Hallelujah! our brother/sister is through!' and the seeker was deemed to have 'received'.
In some quarters repeating 'the Blood, the Blood' over and over again was thought to segue neatly into 'speaking in tongues ...'
Sure, those are extremes and condemned by the Penties themselves, and whilst these things happened back in the day - and not in my own experience - I have, nevertheless, encountered rather superstitious attitudes towards 'the Blood' and its efficacy in the life of the believer.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
He certainly has. Stone me! I'm Orthodox! Is that what you've been getting at all along mousethief? Isn't the 'debt crisis' older than Anselm? Isn't it in Augustine at least? How did the East deal with this?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Giles Fraser has written quite well on this today.
Well spotted! I particularly liked the line " [Orthodoxen] say, salvation is not some bloody cosmic accountancy. It’s a prison break."
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
@Gamaliel. Yes I remember this. You've reminded me of HA Maxwell-White's book "The Power of the Blood" which I haven't read for some years (I'll have to see if I still have it somewhere). In the early days of the Pentecostal movement, there were cries of "Blood, the blood!" But that particular expression of over-enthusiasm seems to have calmed.
I vaguely remember the idea that different of Christ's wounds have different healing properties. I see this as an extension of the popular allegorising tendencies in Pentedostal preaching. Each element of a Biblical story has a deeper meaning, each wound a special significance. That's not to pass a value judgement on it - just an observation.
Hope you're recovering well from your journey BTW.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Here's what I think the bible essentially says concerning the cross.
People sin and people die and the two are somehow linked.
There are two incontrovertible facts: I am a sinner and I am going to die. I can avoid neither.
It is not possible to be free from sin in this life. Only death has the potential to separate me from sin.
Therefore, it is not just the realisation that I will die - or even that I deserve to die - that is necessary. What is needed is the realisation that I need to die in order to be free from my sin.
However, I find myself faced with a problem. If I die 'in my sin' I will perish. Thankfully, the bible says that there is another death with which I can identify in order to be freed from my sin.
By faith it is somehow possible to be crucified with Christ. He supplies the death I need in order to be free from sin. This happens through mystical union with him. If I die 'in Christ' by virtue of my mystical union I will be set free from sin and united to God.
This is, AFAIK, is vicarious substitutionary atonement. Jesus provides the death which I need in order to be free from sin and united to God.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nenya
Shipmate
# 16427
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Giles Fraser has written quite well on this today.
Well spotted! I particularly liked the line " [Orthodoxen] say, salvation is not some bloody cosmic accountancy. It’s a prison break."
I was on a retreat day today and the theme was the Eastern Orthodox resurrection icon. The majority of the discussion (what discussion there was, that is - it was mainly a silent day) was about the way the focus of orthodoxy is not the cross, important though that is, but the images of transformation and Christ's victory over the powers of darkness and death.
It was awesome. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
They told me I was delusional. I nearly fell off my unicorn.
Posts: 1289 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Here's what I think the bible essentially says concerning the cross.
People sin and people die and the two are somehow linked.
But is it true? The link I mean. It's biblical. But factual?
The additional, that death of Jesus is required, is debatable with a God who can do anything. It is what occurred with the behaviour of the human beings involved, but to have the free-will decision to execute Jesus made by the people does not equate with the idea that God necessarily required it.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Here's what I think the bible essentially says concerning the cross.
People sin and people die and the two are somehow linked.
But is it true? The link I mean. It's biblical. But factual?
Good question. What evidence is there, both for and against?
quote:
The additional, that death of Jesus is required, is debatable with a God who can do anything. It is what occurred with the behaviour of the human beings involved, but to have the free-will decision to execute Jesus made by the people does not equate with the idea that God necessarily required it.
What I presented above doesn't specifically or explicitly say that the death of Jesus was required by God in a penal sense. It says that our death is required and that Jesus somehow provides a sinless death to which we can be mystically united thereby escaping the eternal consequences of sin.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
daronmedway -
I've just been looking up vicarious substitutionary atonement. A problem seems to be that that phrase gets used for a range of positions, from something that looks pretty much like the "recapitulation" position, right through to something I can't see as being any different to PSA. Not your fault, I know, but it seems a rather unstable entity.
My perception is that you seem nearer the classic recapitulation end than the PSA end from what you have written so far. Have I read you correctly?
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Yes, Ron. I think that's where I'm at currently. I think the modern presentation of PSA is rather over egged and having read the Puritan classic The death of death in the death of Christ I think it's possible - and indeed biblical - to hold a more nuanced view of substitutionary atonement which doesn't require some kind of temporary animosity between the Father and the Son.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Yes, Ron. I think that's where I'm at currently. I think the modern presentation of PSA is rather over egged and having read the Puritan classic The death of death in the death of Christ I think it's possible - and indeed biblical - to hold a more nuanced view of substitutionary atonement which doesn't require some kind of temporary animosity between the Father and the Son.
I like your thinking here, daronmedway.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
Who knew? I appear to be more Eastern than Western in my theology. Thank you SofFs
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Here's what I think the bible essentially says concerning the cross.
People sin and people die and the two are somehow linked.
But is it true? The link I mean. It's biblical. But factual?
Good question. What evidence is there, both for and against?
quote:
The additional, that death of Jesus is required, is debatable with a God who can do anything. It is what occurred with the behaviour of the human beings involved, but to have the free-will decision to execute Jesus made by the people does not equate with the idea that God necessarily required it.
What I presented above doesn't specifically or explicitly say that the death of Jesus was required by God in a penal sense. It says that our death is required...
Why?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Why?
Tis the mystery of faith: you can only gain life by losing it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Re-reading DM's post there I think I understand him better; there might be something I can work with there.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
Just suppose there is no substitution necessary; God has no problem with us not being perfect; death does not need to be overcome; justice does not need to be satisfied. Just suppose a violent death is not necessary. Suppose the cross is the ultimate debunking of sacrificial thinking rather than its ultimate fulfilment.
All versions I was brought up with had God as both grossly incompetent and blood thirsty.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Well said, Luigi! :noteworthy: Furthermore, there's plenty of evidence in the gospels to support your case.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
What I presented above doesn't specifically or explicitly say that the death of Jesus was required by God in a penal sense. It says that our death is required and that Jesus somehow provides a sinless death to which we can be mystically united thereby escaping the eternal consequences of sin.
I don't see our deaths as required, rather that our deaths are inevitable. Biological fact. I've been thinking more along the lines of Jesus set an example for us, and a roadmap for humanity. The wikipedia explanation of the moral influence concept captures some of my thinking, though I would tend to neglect almost completely any ideas about an afterlife, which in my view will take care of itself and is not a reasonable focus for a good life.
[fixed url]
[ 15. April 2015, 05:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Meike
Shipmate
# 3006
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I've been thinking more along the lines of Jesus set an example for us, and a roadmap for humanity. The wikipedia explanation of the moral influence concept captures some of my thinking, though I would tend to neglect almost completely any ideas about an afterlife, which in my view will take care of itself and is not a reasonable focus for a good life.
But how could his death on the cross or any violent death be a moral example for humanity?
And how would it be different then from, let’s say, the teaching of Buddha who died a natural death and inspires people to live a an ethical life (or other religions or philosophies)?
--------------------
“A god who let us prove his existence would be an idol” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 250 | From: I like this place | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Luigi: I suppose SO!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Meike:
But how could his death on the cross or any violent death be a moral example for humanity?
And how would it be different then from, let’s say, the teaching of Buddha who died a natural death and inspires people to live a an ethical life (or other religions or philosophies)?
I could well be wrong, but I don't think that the Buddha taught that his followers should sit under a tree and wait for enlightenment. Buddhism seems to be a religion built upon the idea that one first needs to recognise one's need for enlightenment and then seek it. Apologies to any Buddhists if that is a misrepresentation.
In contrast, the Christ of the gospels is not primarily a philosopher or even really offering a well-arranged set of behviours to follow to reach the 'good life'. Indeed, he seems to talk in riddles, oxymorons and contradictions.
But - that said, it seems clear to me that there is a moral example one is supposed to read from the gospels; namely that people who claim to follow Jesus Christ are to let go of the things of this life, pick up a cross and follow to the place of crucifixion. That moral example is that one can only be truly whole and truly human in total self-sacrificial giving and service of the other.
I am not sure it is quite the same kind of example as given by other teachers, the example here is one of action not just following directions.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Yes, Ron. I think that's where I'm at currently. I think the modern presentation of PSA is rather over egged and having read the Puritan classic The death of death in the death of Christ I think it's possible - and indeed biblical - to hold a more nuanced view of substitutionary atonement which doesn't require some kind of temporary animosity between the Father and the Son.
I like your thinking here, daronmedway.
I'm sorry? "temporary animosity between the Father and the Son..."?
Where do you get that in PSA?
God was 'in Christ' in atonement.
The Father suffered (albeit in a different way) with the Son as the Son was on the cross.
Jesus laid down his own life, it wasn't taken from him (by the Romans, the Jews or, for that matter, the Father!).
I think some people over-egg their opposition to SA by introducing human emotions and feelings into the Father/Son relationship that having nothing to do with atonement.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Meike:
But how could his death on the cross or any violent death be a moral example for humanity?
And how would it be different then from, let’s say, the teaching of Buddha who died a natural death and inspires people to live a an ethical life (or other religions or philosophies)?
I could well be wrong, but I don't think that the Buddha taught that his followers should sit under a tree and wait for enlightenment. Buddhism seems to be a religion built upon the idea that one first needs to recognise one's need for enlightenment and then seek it. Apologies to any Buddhists if that is a misrepresentation.
In contrast, the Christ of the gospels is not primarily a philosopher or even really offering a well-arranged set of behviours to follow to reach the 'good life'. Indeed, he seems to talk in riddles, oxymorons and contradictions.
But - that said, it seems clear to me that there is a moral example one is supposed to read from the gospels; namely that people who claim to follow Jesus Christ are to let go of the things of this life, pick up a cross and follow to the place of crucifixion. That moral example is that one can only be truly whole and truly human in total self-sacrificial giving and service of the other.
I am not sure it is quite the same kind of example as given by other teachers, the example here is one of action not just following directions.
Well, letting of the things of this life sounds interesting, and even inspiring. Do Christians in reality do this? I expect that some of them do.
Total self-sacrificial giving? Gulp, it sounds like masochism to me, the word 'total' makes me skeptical. I also doubt that this is the only way of being human and whole.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Well said, Luigi! :noteworthy: Furthermore, there's plenty of evidence in the gospels to support your case.
Kwesi - yes I think the wrongness of the crucifiction has some back up from parts of scripture. Of course there are scriptures (quite a few) that back up some sort of subsitutionary atonement or some of the other (IMV) problematic takes on the cross - particularly Hebrews.
I have no problem with 'going against the text' and saying this author was almost certainly wrong on this issue. I think an approach which says 'look we can get all these voices to sing in harmony' is deeply flawed and unconvincing.
The irony is that the view (largely based on the thinking of early / mid period Rene Girard) that the cross is the ultimate debunking of sacrificial thinking is most easily seen when you spend some time looking at the sacrificial system outlined in Leviticus. Many see it as a very boring book. I see it as a very disturbing book.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Total self-sacrificial giving? Gulp, it sounds like masochism to me, the word 'total' makes me skeptical. I also doubt that this is the only way of being human and whole.
It seems to me that the call of Christianity is to total sacrificial giving. I guess one could say that is a form of masochism, but Christianity has always valued self-sacrifice over personal spiritual development, in my opinion.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Total self-sacrificial giving? Gulp, it sounds like masochism to me, the word 'total' makes me skeptical. I also doubt that this is the only way of being human and whole.
It seems to me that the call of Christianity is to total sacrificial giving. I guess one could say that is a form of masochism, but Christianity has always valued self-sacrifice over personal spiritual development, in my opinion.
It sounds extreme to me, like a kind of spiritual anorexia, dangerous in fact. Fortunately, nobody will manage it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It sounds extreme to me, like a kind of spiritual anorexia, dangerous in fact. Fortunately, nobody will manage it.
Christianity is nothing if not extreme.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
