Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

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.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

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.

---

I just think there are lots of ways of being whole and human; still, each to their own.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

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.

---

I just think there are lots of ways of being whole and human; still, each to their own.

---

I guess it depends on how you see wholeness. Some people see it as relating only to the individual, which could be therapeutic for that person, but...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
It's not a criticism of you at all, q - just an observation that for a lot of other people it appears to be more a mystical monism. But that would be a long digression.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

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.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

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?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Face it: to deny God’s wrath is, at bottom, to deny God’s love. When God sees humans being enslaved – and do please go and see the film Amazing Grace as soon as you get the chance – if God doesn’t hate it, he is not a loving God. (It was the sneering, sophisticated set who tried to make out that God didn’t get angry about that kind of thing, and whom Wilberforce opposed with the message that God really does hate slavery.) When God sees innocent people being bombed because of someone’s political agenda, if God doesn’t hate it, he isn’t a loving God.

NT Wright
The Word of the Cross

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You see, you use phrases that misrepresent the position. You say that people who hold PSA as a valid theory believe that God as "essentially wrathful" as opposed to those who believe that God is "essentially loving."

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
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.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
You see it seems to me that 1% of us picking up 1% of our cross is not much Cross.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But then beating oneself up over it isn't much use, is it? We just end up in another guilt trip; maybe it would be better to abandon the idea of total self-sacrifice as a dangerous illusion?

---

quote:

---

I was reading the church noticeboard in a village I am staying in, and there was a long litany by somebody (presumably the vicar), saying how he regretted watching crap TV, eating too much nice food, buying nice clothes, and so on. What is this, self-flagellation Inc.?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK, but if I recall correctly there are two alternative cycles of meditation passages in the Northumbria prayerbook, so that is 2 out of 62 readings.

They're not really typical evangelicals in that (or typical evangelicals in any real sense).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There are only 31 meditations, one for each day of the longest month. There are two sets of daily bible readings, so there is indeed a doubling up there. But not for the meditations.

---

quote:

---

Day 6 and Day 7 meditations seem to be the ones that Drew is referring to. Neither refers to the nature of the atonement (no wrathful God to be found); both point to Christ's victory, human freedom and destiny.

---

quote:

---

You are quite right that the NC as a community is not typically evangelical. The local group to which I belong has members from various parts of the spectrum. The community has an ecumenical outlook, prefers to encourage folks to travel together, rather than draw boundaries which emphasise differences. Given the "heretical imperative" (esentially a willingness to give folks freedom to question and think for themselves), which is a community value, I don't think anyone is in much danger of being lulled into a superstitious interpretation of those meditations.

I'm simultaneously a companion in the NC and a long term member of an evo nonco congo. Go figure.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

My general point is that Drewthealexander hasn't really shown anything much by offering evidence from the prayer book of the NC. It might well be the case that it is used more widely by evangelicals than I imagined, but I don't think this really proves anything very much.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[qb] OK, but if I recall correctly there are two alternative cycles of meditation passages in the Northumbria prayerbook, so that is 2 out of 62 readings.

Day 6 and Day 7 meditations seem to be the ones that Drew is referring to. Neither refers to the nature of the atonement (no wrathful God to be found); both point to Christ's victory, human freedom and destiny.

I'm simultaneously a companion in the NC and a long term member of an evo nonco congo. Go figure.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mudfrog, isn't there a critical distinction to be made between sin and sinful people? It is different, isn't it, to say that sin incurs God's wrath as a consequence of his loving nature from believing that sinful people incur God's wrath and face an eternity in hell? PSA does not address sin but sinful people who must pay a penalty for committing sins.

---

Oh yes, we must not, of course, tell people that they are sinners in need of salvation and that it's only their sin that needs forgiving and not they themselves.



Wesley seemed to have it right:

quote:

---

Depth of mercy! Can there be
Mercy still reserved for me?
Can my God His wrath forbear,
Me, the chief of sinners, spare?

I have long withstood His grace,
Long provoked Him to His face,
Would not hearken to His calls,
Grieved Him by a thousand falls.

Whence to me this waste of love?
Ask my advocate above!
See the cause in Jesus’ face,
Now before the throne of grace.

There for me the Saviour stands,
Shows His wounds and spreads His hands.
God is love! I know, I feel;
Jesus lives and loves me still.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
No q. What it is, is me not reconciled at all to all our beliefs, all our religion, all our worship, all our praise, all our prayers, all our words of knowledge, all our utter inability to embrace the poor in any meaningful way. For 'our' read 'my'. Sorry to project. I'm sure there are a billion Mother Theresas out there.

And yeah, let's just carpet bomb IS.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mudfrog, isn't there a critical distinction to be made between sin and sinful people? It is different, isn't it, to say that sin incurs God's wrath as a consequence of his loving nature from believing that sinful people incur God's wrath and face an eternity in hell? PSA does not address sin but sinful people who must pay a penalty for committing sins.

Mudferog: Oh yes, we must not, of course, tell people that they are sinners in need of salvation and that it's only their sin that needs forgiving and not they themselves.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mudfrog

quote:

---

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mudfrog, isn't there a critical distinction to be made between sin and sinful people? It is different, isn't it, to say that sin incurs God's wrath as a consequence of his loving nature from believing that sinful people incur God's wrath and face an eternity in hell? PSA does not address sin but sinful people who must pay a penalty for committing sins.

Mudferog: Oh yes, we must not, of course, tell people that they are sinners in need of salvation and that it's only their sin that needs forgiving and not they themselves.

---

I assume from your mocking tone that you do not accept the distinction. Sin, by the way, does not need to be forgiven- it needs to be defeated.

---

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)?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
What's the wrath of God?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The focus on his death, the cross and related issues is precisely the wrong focus. That's the problem. If you're going with moral example, you don't let the sacrificing penal view set the terms of the discussion and focus on the death part.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Active? When?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
I assume from your mocking tone that you do not accept the distinction. Sin, by the way, does not need to be forgiven- it needs to be defeated.

---

That was my point. It is people who need forgiving because it is people who are under the wrath of God.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

And the idea that the atonement can work backwards obviously doesn't work otherwise there would be no need to institute the animal sacrifice and everyone would be covered by the blood (so to speak) backwards from the death at Golgotha.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truman White:
Good place to ask how Christendom has reconciled that particular problem. On principle, there doesn't seem to be a problem with a temporal act having eternal consequences. Revelation speaks of Christ being "slain before the foundation of the world" so if you're going to get your head round this you need to start with the worldview of the people who came up with this idea in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Still, raises the question of what the point was of the Old Testament sacrificial system. One of my old lecturers compared it to a flight simulator - it teaches you everything that's supposed to happen, but you only get airborne by being in a plane.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Meike:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The focus on his death, the cross and related issues is precisely the wrong focus. That's the problem. If you're going with moral example, you don't let the sacrificing penal view set the terms of the discussion and focus on the death part.

---

There is a case for penal substitution, though, and reason to assume that Jesus saw his own death as sacrificial, because he was quoting from Isaiah 53 about the suffering servant bearing the punishment on our behalf. That, and the words of institution at the eucharist, about scripture being fulfilled etc.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truman White:
Yo Mr Cheesy.

---

quote:

---

Might help to separate out two issues here. The relationship between the cross and the OT sacrificial system is one issue. The interpretation of the saving significance of that relationship is a second one.

---

quote:

---

So let's have a go at taking these in turn.

What I reckon about the OT sacrificial system was that it was both provisional and instructive. Sin has immediate and temporal consequences (tweak my nose and I won't be happy and there will be consequences) and eternal consequences (it separates you from God forever).

---

quote:

---

The OT sacrificial system dealt with the immediate consequences of keeping you in Jahweh's covenant community. It dealt with the immediate problem of sin polluting the community and muddying your relationship with God. It did that job fine. What the NT writers say is that it couldn't deal with the eternal consequences of sin which is why Christ had to come.

---

quote:

---

The OT sacrifices were like a patch up job, or applying medicine to deal with symptoms (which is why they had to repeated year on year). Christ's sacrifice deals with the root cause of sin in the human condition by crucifying that condition and renewing it in himself. In that way he deals with the eternal consequences of sin, once and for all. It's not a patch-up repair job, it's a new creation.

---

Again, that is not the way sacrifice is described in the OT. You are just asserting that the atonement is needed because the OT sacrifice was inadequate. Which is fine - my points are mostly assertions too

quote:

---

So the OT sacrificial system served a purpose and did it fine. Christ's sacrifice does something else, something deeper and more cosmic.

---

quote:

---

Second issue is how you interpret that. Now our Mr Mudfrog is a keen PSA exponent, a view which has a broad following in the church and one I respect.

---

quote:

---

But it's not the only way of understanding the cross (other views upthread). You can, IME, be an orthodox, faithful and (if i's important to you) Bible Believing Christian without subscribing to PSA. So to take points made up-thread, sacrifice can be an expression of penitence, remove guilt, remove impurity, break a curse - all views you will find in Scripture.

---

quote:

---

If you can get your head around the OT sacrifices doing a valuable but limited job, you should be OK going from there to Christ's sacrifice achieving a complete, comprehensive, cosmic, and eternal job.

---

quote:

---

What you have to deal with is the evidence. The sacrificial system and Christ's relationship to it is central to Christian doctrine and important to the New Testament writers so we have to make sense of it. If PSA makes is a road-block, have a look at another angle that keeps you moving towards a conclusion that makes sense.

Chew on that for a bit and see where it gets you.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stejjie:
Is it not possible that:
a) The first Christians saw in what Jesus had done something of a fulfillment of the words of Isaiah 53;

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truman White:
Alright Mr Cheesy

So how do you see the OT sacrificial system?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If PSA is only acceptable in certain sections of modern evangelicalism, how does one explain:

Mine, mine was the transgression,
but thine the deadly pain?

Surely the pain in 'O sacred head (now, once, or sore) wounded' is in the context of the transgression.

Sounds pretty PSA to me.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truman White:
Alright Mr Cheesy

So how do you see the OT sacrificial system?

---

I have already answered this: the sacrifice was for the person not God. Death is not needed by God to forgive sins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truman White:
Alright Mr Cheesy

So how do you see the OT sacrificial system?

---

I have already answered this: the sacrifice was for the person not God. Death is not needed by God to forgive sins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

The simplest explanation for sacrifice is, in my view, to get over the idea of a free gift. Accepting the forgiveness of God, which is offered freely, is not a free gift, glibly accepted with a life unchanged, but something which requires a costly response.

Sacrifice is a reminder to the individual that the Way of God is costly, and that it demands the best of what we have. It seems to me that the biblical record is in fact a progression away from the idea of placating the deity, away from the idea of killing other humans and towards the idea of sacrificing first things of immense value (animals in a rural economy) and ultimately in sacrificing one's whole life in response to the call.

---