|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Penal Substitutionary Atonement
|
scuffleball
Shipmate
# 16480
|
Posted
(Following on from the thread on Methodist Hymnals.)
What is this, in layman's terms - no pun intended?
(No, I don't want to google it as any results I find are likely to be biased and anyway I want to hear all of your opinions on it. Apparently even the Wikipedia article on it is bogie.)
Is PSA bogie? Is it in the œcumenical creeds and if not can we consider it a necessary part of Christianity? Is it in the doctrinal basis? (I am lead to believe it is, and that it is the main objection of non-evangelicals to the same.)
[ 02. December 2011, 09:08: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
SPK: I also plan to create ... a Calvinist Ordinariate
ken: I thought it was called Taize?
Posts: 272 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
scuffleball will have a fruitless search, leo. PSA is not included in the list of DH topics in the guidelines to be found here.
I've flagged up the location of this thread to the Dead Horses Hosts.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Poppy
Ship's dancing cat
# 2000
|
Posted
"Penal Substitution: A theory of atonement that interprets Christ's saving death as a substitutionary bearing the punishment that human beings owe for sin. In freely giving himself up to a sacrifical death, Christ bears God's wrath and pays the penalty for sin in humanities death."
From Platinga RJ, Thompson TR and Lundberg MD 'An Introduction to Christian Theology' (2010) which is worth the modest price tag for the extremely good theological glossary at the end of the book!
--------------------
At the still point of the turning world - there the dance is...
Posts: 1406 | From: mostly on the edge | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Host Mode <ACTIVATE>
PSA indeed doesn't belong (for which I might add a fervent and sincere 'Thank God'!).
It therefore gives me great pleasure to elevate it to the correct realm - Purgatory.
Host Mode <DE-ACTIVATE>
Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sorry, Scuffleball, I don't quite understand what you mean by the 'doctrinal basis' ... and that bit about the objection of non-evangelicals.
PSA isn't in any of the Creeds but it's certainly in the constitution of many evangelical churches and is the dominant note in evangelical understandings of the atonement - but even within evangelicalism it may be the main way the atonement is understand but there are other models that come into play. 'Christus Victor' has become increasingly popular in Western churches recently and many evangelical churches appear to have a combination of PSA/Christus Victor to me.
The mileage varies and you'll find some evos who seem to think that you can't possibly be a Christian if you don't accept PSA and others who use and apply it with caution, alongside other models.
PSA is a Western feature and you won't find it among the Orthodox at all.
--------------------
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
|
|
tessaB
Shipmate
# 8533
|
Posted
I know that there are many of this site who are not happy with PSA. Personally I would prefer to have a theory of Christ's death and resurrection that did not involve a wrathful and rather petty sounding God making damn sure that someone paid for all the sins in the world.
However, I cannot quite bring myself to throw it all out particularly bearing in mind
Romans 3:24-26
and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
Surely that is an explanation of PSA (or am I thicker than I thought?)
--------------------
tessaB
eating chocolate to the glory of God
Holiday cottage near Rye
Posts: 1068 | From: U.K. | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
My contribution to this debate is that the atonement has to actually do sosmething. It needs to effect a change, gain a result for me - or as CW wrote, 'And can it be that I should gain an interest in the Saviour's blood.
I can accept all the modern theories of metaphors of the atonement as illustrations of what Jesus did, or his motivation - demonstration of love, moral example or even victory over evil - but which of them actually changes me, delivers me from my sin or propitiates the Father - i.e. removes the reason for judgment from my soul?
Consider this:
If I was drowning in the sea and a man showed great courage and selflessness by jumping in to rescue me, dying in the process, that would be a tremendous example to theose standing on the shore - but it would be absolutely no use to me, still floundering in the water while my 'hero' disappears below the waves!
If I'm drowing, I want someone who will actually get me out of the water by using his every last ounce of strength, even though it means he dies in my place.
Penal substitutionary atonement - the act where out of love, the Father and Son give and are given unto death for the sins of others, is the only way that my sins can actually be removed in atonement. Barth says that in the cross the judge is also the judged - and Paul says that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself.
There is no question at all that a vengeful Father kills his innocent son for sins he didn';t commit: that is NOT what PSA mewans at all! That's the caricature that assumes adoptionism and ignore Christ's own statement about laying down his own life, etc.
Correctly and temperately examined, this doctrine is a beautiful one of total grace and measured judgment that sees the sinner go free and the willing, suffering servant entirely vindicated through resurrection.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
Penal Substitutionary Atonement as a theory of the atonement is defined by two things: it's Penal, and it's Substitutionary.
It's penal because it says that Jesus is punished on the cross, and it's substitutionary because it says that Jesus is substituted for us. We deserve to be punished, but Jesus gets punished instead of us.
That's all there is to it. Anything that invokes other concepts: sacrifice, or satisfaction, or sanctification is no longer pure PSA but a mixed theory.
Defenders of PSA often muddle all sorts of other things in. For example, Mudfrog in the previous post writes that atonement quote:
needs to effect a change
or asks which theory quote:
actually changes me, delivers me from my sin?
PSA does nothing of that. All that PSA says Jesus does on the cross is get punished on my behalf. The cross does nothing to sanctify me, to stop me from committing sins. That is all put down to the work of the Holy Spirit. The cross effects merely a change in legal status, not a real change.
That is, in classical Reformed theology, there are two components to salvation: justification and sanctification. Justification is how we avoid punishment for our sins; sanctification is how we come to cease committing sins in future. PSA addresses justification alone.
The underlying problem that PSA is supposed to solve is how God can justly forgive sins. If nobody gets punished apparently justice is not done.
The chief objection is that quite how punishing an innocent person instead of a guilty person can ever be said to be just is seldom addressed and never answered.(*) Also, this looks like a false problem from non-PSA points of view: sin is acknowledged to be sin when it is forgiven, so there's no need to punish it to acknowledge it as sin.
So: a lot of people can't agree with PSA. It's not in any of the ecumenical creeds, which merely say that Jesus died for us and for our salvation, but don't specify how that happens.
(*) When this question is addressed, it's usual to claim that God can declare anything to be just that God likes. There are two insurmountable flaws to this: the first is that if 'just' means something different applied to God than it does in ordinary life, we'd be better off using a completely made-up word - we could call God 'vuwl' which would have no irrelevant associations with human justice. The second is that if God declared that forgiving sins without punishing was just then God could do that, so the necessity of the argument is cancelled by that.
[ 28. June 2011, 22:02: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
PSA isn't in any of the Creeds but it's certainly in the constitution of many evangelical churches and is the dominant note in evangelical understandings of the atonement... PSA is a Western feature and you won't find it among the Orthodox at all.
I had no idea that there was any way of understanding the atonement other than as a punishment given to Jesus in our place until I read 'The Lost Message of Jesus' by Steve Chalke and Alan Mann. They used the phrase 'cosmic child abuse' to describe PSA and got an awful lot of flak as a result...
I was researching for an essay I had to write and found that some evangelical theologians apparently thought PSA was the only valid theory of the atonement. It seemed they were unaware that PSA has by no means been the main way that Christians through history have understood the atonement and, as Gamaliel said, large chunks of the worldwide church reject it as a theory.
Here are a couple of pro-PSA quotations from well-known evangelical theologians, first John Piper and then Wayne Grudem:
quote:
This is breathtaking coming from a professing Christian... God sent His Son to rescue me from His wrath and make me His child. How did He do it? He did it in the way Steve Chalke slanderously calls "cosmic child abuse".
quote:
He [Chalke] is giving away the heart of the Gospel. I would never agree to give my approval to anyone who denies penal substitutionary atonement to be an elder at a church I attended, or to be a pastor or Bible teacher, or to teach at a theological seminary where I had influence on the appointment.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I was researching for an essay I had to write and found that some evangelical theologians apparently thought PSA was the only valid theory of the atonement. It seemed they were unaware that PSA has by no means been the main way that Christians through history have understood the atonement and, as Gamaliel said, large chunks of the worldwide church reject it as a theory.
In my experience of evangelicals, which is extensive, you could just maybe fill a thimble with what your average evangelical-on-the-street knows about the history of the church between the end of Acts and the Reformation.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I have many, many problems with PSA, but the chief of them is this: there's no point to the resurrection.
Jesus died, for my sins, in my place.
Okay. Now what?
We're Christians because of the resurrection. Any atonement theory that relegates that to an afterthought isn't really a theory I want to hold.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Consider this:
If I was drowning in the sea and a man showed great courage and selflessness by jumping in to rescue me, dying in the process, that would be a tremendous example to theose standing on the shore - but it would be absolutely no use to me, still floundering in the water while my 'hero' disappears below the waves!
If I'm drowing, I want someone who will actually get me out of the water by using his every last ounce of strength, even though it means he dies in my place.
Did you lift this straight from Leon Morris's discuassion of one of Abelard's theories of the atonement in his The Cross Of Jesus, Mudfrog, or is it a case of great (theological) minds thinking alike?
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Consider this:
If I'm drowing, I want someone who will actually get me out of the water by using his every last ounce of strength, even though it means he dies in my place.
That seems very selfish to me, to want somebody else to sacrifice himself for you. If somebody did that I would be grateful, but feel a huge weight of Survivor's Guilt for the rest of my life. I'd probably constantly be sending gifts to his family in an effort to assuage my guilt. But the guilt would never go away. I can imagine someone who felt this burden committing suicide because of the guilt and heaviness of it.
As for applying this to Christ, it's really not a very good analogy. It's not as if Christ tried harder and harder and harder and finally it killed him. If PSA is right, it was only going to be his death that worked from the beginning. Death was the aim from the start. Whereas with the lifeguard scenario, the lifeguard dearly hopes to preserve his own life while saving yours. The death of the savior is a sine qua non of PSA, whereas the death of the lifeguard is not the sine qua non of a water rescue.
To me, and I realize this is not what PSA believers have in mind, it looks as if PSA posits a split personality in God. The Father is all angry and vengeful and hung up on justice at any price; whereas the Son is all about mercy and forgiveness and grace. Don't kill them, Dad. I know you're angry and you feel like you gotta kill somebody. Kill me.
Come to think of it, it looks like some views of the God of the OT and the God of the NT.
Finally, as has been noted already, how is it just to kill one person for another person's wrongdoing?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
As for applying this to Christ, it's really not a very good analogy.
Probably not - and neither is any other analogy, because they're just that: stories or examples that try to illustrate exactly what happened in the reconciling death and resurrection of Jesus.
Having said that no analogy is perfect (i.e. none of them is fit to be a doctrinal explanation) I think that PSA is an evil teaching because it passes on a picture of a vengeful God to those who have neither the time nor the inclination to inquire further. 'Satisfying the wrath of God' forms no part of my faith. I will not teach it and I will not have it taught (or sung) in places where I have oversight.
I may well appreciate that it is just part of a complex forensic analogy of what God was/is up to, but I think I have a responsibility to ensure as little misunderstanding about God's nature as possible.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
The chief objection is that quite how punishing an innocent person instead of a guilty person can ever be said to be just
Well, I don't object. I am grateful.The one volunteers to be punished; and the one who does so is not just a person, he is God incarnate giving himself to restore and redeem a sinful world. It would be very stupid to reject an offer like that. In being a man he identifies with our wakness and sin, in being God, he transcends it
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Consider this:
If I was drowning in the sea and a man showed great courage and selflessness by jumping in to rescue me, dying in the process, that would be a tremendous example to theose standing on the shore - but it would be absolutely no use to me, still floundering in the water while my 'hero' disappears below the waves!
If I'm drowing, I want someone who will actually get me out of the water by using his every last ounce of strength, even though it means he dies in my place.
Did you lift this straight from Leon Morris's discuassion of one of Abelard's theories of the atonement in his The Cross Of Jesus, Mudfrog, or is it a case of great (theological) minds thinking alike?
Indeed. I'm writing a negotiated study essay at the moment on the wrath of God and PSA and, like every 'good student' I found the argument but forgot where I read it!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I found it online and have realised that in my quoting the argument from memory and paraphrasing it heavily I have actually done a disservice to the argument:
Here it is from the great man himself:
quote:
If Christ was not actually doing something by his death, then we are confronted with a piece of showmanship, nothing more. Someone once said that if he were in a rushing river and someone jumped in to save him, and in the process lost his life, he could recognize the love and sacrifice involved. But if he was sitting safely on the land and someone jumped into the torrent to show his love, he could see no point in it and only lament the senseless act. Unless the death of Christ really does something, it is not in fact a demonstration of love.
My argumen t is that the atronement actually has to do something for me, for my sin. PSA turns away judgment, deals with my sin effectively and atones for me.
The judge becomes judged in my place - that's Karl Barth!
The Father suffers along with the Son - that's Jurgen Moltmann
PSA does NOT have a wrathful God abusing his Son.
It's about a loving God dealing with his own wrath, willingly, on our behalf in the person of his life-sacrificing eternal Son.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
The chief objection is that quite how punishing an innocent person instead of a guilty person can ever be said to be just
Well, I don't object. I am grateful.The one volunteers to be punished; and the one who does so is not just a person, he is God incarnate giving himself to restore and redeem a sinful world. It would be very stupid to reject an offer like that. In being a man he identifies with our wakness and sin, in being God, he transcends it
It's not that it isn't a good offer. It's that it's not just.
God could just forgive us, like He taught us to forgive our brother seventy times seven. Or are we expected to be better than God?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Interesting, Doc Tor. What you wrote got me thinking about the phrase "forgiveness of sin." In the creed we're told Christ's incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension, were "for us [men] and for our salvation."
What's said to be "for the forgiveness of sin" is baptism.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I have many, many problems with PSA, but the chief of them is this: there's no point to the resurrection.
Jesus died, for my sins, in my place.
Okay. Now what?
We're Christians because of the resurrection. Any atonement theory that relegates that to an afterthought isn't really a theory I want to hold.
I have never met an evangelical whom by believing in PSA, doesn't recognise the necessity and the glory of the resurrection!
By the resurrection Jesus was declared to be the Son of God in power! The resurrection is the vindication, the proof of his divinity and of the efficacy of the sacrifice! We even see it in Isaiah 53 v 11.
It's why evangelicals never have crucifixes - Christ is Risen! The tomb and the cross are empty!
Bearing shame and mocking rude
In my place condemned he stood
Sealed my pardon with his blood;
Hallelujah! What a Saviour!
Lifted up was he to die;
It is finished! was his cry;
Now in Heaven, exalted high;
Hallelujah! What a Saviour!
Nom you'll never find an evangelical - certainly not one who believes the classic PSA atonement - who does not glory in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ!
In fact, we are more likely to believe in the empty tomb than many a non-evangelical liberal ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 29. June 2011, 08:49: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I have never met an evangelical whom by beklieving in PSA, doesn't recognise the necessity and the glory of the resurrection!
By the resurrection Jesus was declared to be the Son of God in power! The resurrection is the vindication, the proof of his divinity and of the efficacy of the sacrofice!
But it doesn't, on your reading, DO anything. Sure it proves he really was who he said he was. But proving that wasn't necessary for the remission of sins under PSA. The resurrection is not part of our Lord's salvific works under PSA.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Sorry, Mudfrog - the more you try to explain it with the river analogy, the more stupid and wrong it sounds.
The analogy would work, of course, if there was a dammed river, where I lived below the dam, which I subsequently destroyed because of my rebellion and selfishness, and then there was a flood that threatened to drown me and I couldn't reach safe ground. If God then chose to help me when I tried to swim for it (but couldn't make it on my own because the water was too fast) by jumping in and rescuing me but drowning in the process.
You see how much better that is?
Except God is God, and He put the water there in the first place, so it still kind of sucks. I mean, why didn't He use a boat?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Revolutionist
Shipmate
# 4578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I was researching for an essay I had to write and found that some evangelical theologians apparently thought PSA was the only valid theory of the atonement. It seemed they were unaware that PSA has by no means been the main way that Christians through history have understood the atonement and, as Gamaliel said, large chunks of the worldwide church reject it as a theory.
IME practically all evangelical theologians know that PSA is controversial outside (and sometimes within) evangelical circles. Most theologically-informed evangelicals also acknowledge and accept that PSA doesn't exhaust all that the atonement achieves.
Jesus' death and resurrection is also a victory over death and evil, and also an example for us, and also gives us new life, and so on. But that Jesus died in our place for our sins is a central and indispensable element of the Cross.
If Jesus hadn't taken our sins on himself and given us his righteousness, then we would still be guilty and unable to benefit from all the other blessings he won on the Cross. Jesus' victory over evil is only good news to us as sinners if there's a way for us to stop being evil.
So criticising PSA for not explaining everything is missing the point. Those, like me, who believe it think that it's true and important, but don't think that it says everything that could be said.
I think the debate really boils down to whether it's true both that (a) we're objectively guilty and sinful; and (b) if God has to punish sin somehow in order to forgive us. PSA depends on those two beliefs. If you've got a different view of the human condition, and/or a different view of justice and forgiveness, then your theology of the atonement will also be different.
[ 29. June 2011, 08:56: Message edited by: The Revolutionist ]
Posts: 1296 | From: London | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
PSA is very much embedded in my psyche - I've been around the doctrine for all my Christian life and although it's been tempered by other models - and they aren't 'modern' ones, Mudfrog, PSA actually came on the scene later than other models/analogies that could be mentioned.
To be frank, I find it a hard one to shift, thanks, partly to the Romans passage that's been cited and other scriptures that can be taken to uphold this particular understanding. And I do know that there are Orthodox who would say, 'Well yes, I can see an aspect of that, however ...'
For me, though, it falls down (or at least weakens) for the reasons that have been listed here - it is very reductionist for a start and only deals with the juridical aspect - it doesn't take full account of the Resurrection and our ongoing life in Christ - a deficit, as Mudfrog will know, that the Wesleyan tradition tried to rectify.
Again, I'm afraid I'm going to sound awfully Ortho' here, but I do wonder whether it's one of those instances - like transubtantiation - where the West has taken things too far through the application of its cold, juridical logic?
RCs have taken certain things too far, Calvinists (rather than Calvin himself necessarily) have taken other things too far (double predestination anyone?) and so has the Wesleyan tradition on other aspects (conscious sinless perfection etc anyone?).
Could it be that the emphasis on PSA is just another of those Western, hyper-logical traits that effectively reduce everything to a set of propositions and squeeze the mystery out of it all?
All that said, I find it hard to understand how some people come away from the scriptures (and yes, we all read them through the lens of our own tradition) without any sense that there is a substitutionary aspect, and yes, I appreciate that a moderate and sensitive approach to PSA avoids the ghastly and grotesque aspects that accompanies a rather crass presentation of it.
But there's cuddly old Gamaliel taking a middle line again ...
I think there is something in PSA that lends itself to the 'crisis' style conversionism that is an inherent part of the evangelical package - and also explains the sense of release and relief that you often find in evangelical testimonies and conversion literature. That same 'crisis' sense then continues into some understandings of sanctification - witness the Wesleyan/Holiness/Pentecostal strand.
It's also easily easily packaged as a neat and convenient sound-bite to use in evangelism - but with the attendant difficulties that this brings.
Part of me still warms to some of the hymnody associated with it - 'Bearing shame and mocking rude/In my place condemned he stood' and 'In Christ Alone' (although I understand the objections to it).
But for my money, it can also lead to a kind of mawkish sentimentality - and I'm as sentimental and soulful as the next man, believe you me, perhaps more so as a South Walian ... we overdose on sentimentality ...
So it runs the risk of two dangerous extremes - a kind of mawkish sentimentality on the one hand (the holiness strand) and a very cold, clinical, almost brutally juridical sense on the other (the Calvinistic).
Both extremes are to be eschewed. And treading the fine line between them takes some doing.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
The chief objection is that quite how punishing an innocent person instead of a guilty person can ever be said to be just
Well, I don't object. I am grateful.The one volunteers to be punished; and the one who does so is not just a person, he is God incarnate giving himself to restore and redeem a sinful world. It would be very stupid to reject an offer like that. In being a man he identifies with our wakness and sin, in being God, he transcends it
It's not that it isn't a good offer. It's that it's not just.
God could just forgive us, like He taught us to forgive our brother seventy times seven. Or are we expected to be better than God?
And upon what basis could God 'just forgive us'?
I'm sure he could but God is not just 'love'm God is also three times #holy'. What of his holiness, the demands of justice and judgment? What of sion? can God just wink at it and say, ah well, I just forgive you?
we forgive our brother 70 times 7 on the basis that we have first been forgiven by Gpod - we reflect his provision of salvation and grace.
But God's provision of such forgiveness lies not only ion love but in his own satisfaction of the law of justrice.
He judged sin in his Son so that we might be forgiven. There can be no forgiveness without the doing away of sin in a just manner that satisfies God's holiness and hatred of sin.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I have never met an evangelical whom by believing in PSA, doesn't recognise the necessity and the glory of the resurrection!
But it's not necessary.
All that's necessary is that Jesus dies in our place, facing God's wrath. The resurrection in the context of PSA is just a 'tada!" All the efficacy is in the death, none of it in the resurrection.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Sorry, Mudfrog - the more you try to explain it with the river analogy, the more stupid and wrong it sounds.
The analogy would work, of course, if there was a dammed river, where I lived below the dam, which I subsequently destroyed because of my rebellion and selfishness, and then there was a flood that threatened to drown me and I couldn't reach safe ground. If God then chose to help me when I tried to swim for it (but couldn't make it on my own because the water was too fast) by jumping in and rescuing me but drowning in the process.
You see how much better that is?
Except God is God, and He put the water there in the first place, so it still kind of sucks. I mean, why didn't He use a boat?
I think you are reading far too much into the metaphor.
It was simply saying that an example of sacrifice is not enough. The act actually has to rescue the person, not just show a willingness to do so.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Mudfrog, no-one is saying that evangelicals don't believe in the resurrection. Arguably, your tradition rejoices in it to a greater extent that some other evangelical traditions - believe me, I've often heard it tacked on almost as an after thought in some evangelical places.
No, what MT and perhaps others here, are saying is that it is possible to dislocate the Resurrection from the Atonement in some forms of evangelical thinking and presentation. The two go together in Orthodoxy in a more integrated way, perhaps, than they often appear to in the West.
The Resurrection is more than proof of who Jesus is and some kind of 'seal of approval' on the atonement. It's very richly expressed in Orthodox hymnody, as MT can tell us. And I don't think that this understanding is absent in the West, just perhaps not highlighting or appreciated as much. That's my two happ'orth as someone who is pretty familiar with all aspects of evangelicalism and who peeks across the Bosphorus from time to time.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
we forgive our brother 70 times 7 on the basis that we have first been forgiven by Gpod - we reflect his provision of salvation and grace.
But God's provision of such forgiveness lies not only ion love but in his own satisfaction of the law of justrice.
He judged sin in his Son so that we might be forgiven. There can be no forgiveness without the doing away of sin in a just manner that satisfies God's holiness and hatred of sin.
Again, it's not just. If God loves justice, he doesn't punish the innocent. Even once.
This might be a problem with language, but I think it's a problem with the model.
If God demands perfect justice, then punishing the innocent, including Himself in the body of His Son, is wrong. It's simply not justice - it makes a mockery of justice.
Now grace and mercy can also make a mockery of justice, forgiveness that is freely given and not earned likewise...
There's cosmic significance in the death and resurrection of Jesus. I don't think it's what you think it is.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I was researching for an essay I had to write and found that some evangelical theologians apparently thought PSA was the only valid theory of the atonement. It seemed they were unaware that PSA has by no means been the main way that Christians through history have understood the atonement and, as Gamaliel said, large chunks of the worldwide church reject it as a theory.
IME practically all evangelical theologians know that PSA is controversial outside (and sometimes within) evangelical circles. Most theologically-informed evangelicals also acknowledge and accept that PSA doesn't exhaust all that the atonement achieves.
Jesus' death and resurrection is also a victory over death and evil, and also an example for us, and also gives us new life, and so on. But that Jesus died in our place for our sins is a central and indispensable element of the Cross.
If Jesus hadn't taken our sins on himself and given us his righteousness, then we would still be guilty and unable to benefit from all the other blessings he won on the Cross. Jesus' victory over evil is only good news to us as sinners if there's a way for us to stop being evil.
So criticising PSA for not explaining everything is missing the point. Those, like me, who believe it think that it's true and important, but don't think that it says everything that could be said.
I think the debate really boils down to whether it's true both that (a) we're objectively guilty and sinful; and (b) if God has to punish sin somehow in order to forgive us. PSA depends on those two beliefs. If you've got a different view of the human condition, and/or a different view of justice and forgiveness, then your theology of the atonement will also be different.
Quite so.
A cursory look at any evangelical hymnbook will show that the ationement is understood in so many, many ways. All of us 'go weak at the knees', spiritually speaking, when we sing When I survey the Wondrous Cross but there is not one word of PSA in it - it's all moral example. And yet the evangelical community would shoot at dawn any hymn editor that left it out of a hymnal!
I repeat however, that PSA does something that orther theories do not - it removes our sins and propitiates God's wrath.
As Mrs Alender wrote, He died to make us good...saved by his precious blood.
The blood of jesus - his outpoured life - actually effects a change in the soul. We are cleansed by his blood, shed for us.
No moral influence or demonstration of love does that. The blood must be a substitute for our own.
Or, as that great 'evangelical song' from St Bernard of Clairvaux affirms:
Thy grief and thy compassion
Were all for sinners' gain;
Mine, mine was the transgression,
But thine the deadly pain.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
we forgive our brother 70 times 7 on the basis that we have first been forgiven by Gpod - we reflect his provision of salvation and grace.
But God's provision of such forgiveness lies not only ion love but in his own satisfaction of the law of justrice.
He judged sin in his Son so that we might be forgiven. There can be no forgiveness without the doing away of sin in a just manner that satisfies God's holiness and hatred of sin.
Again, it's not just. If God loves justice, he doesn't punish the innocent. Even once.
This might be a problem with language, but I think it's a problem with the model.
If God demands perfect justice, then punishing the innocent, including Himself in the body of His Son, is wrong. It's simply not justice - it makes a mockery of justice.
Now grace and mercy can also make a mockery of justice, forgiveness that is freely given and not earned likewise...
There's cosmic significance in the death and resurrection of Jesus. I don't think it's what you think it is.
Go on then, enlighten us.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Mudfrog, no-one is saying that evangelicals don't believe in the resurrection. Arguably, your tradition rejoices in it to a greater extent that some other evangelical traditions - believe me, I've often heard it tacked on almost as an after thought in some evangelical places.
Anecdotal evidence is valuable to the teller, but not to the hearer. I just do not recognise the analysis of evangelicalism that suggests the resurrection is an afterthought. What doctrinal statements do you know of rather than just what you've heard?
Having said that, I would suggest that many such statements are condensed versions of what we believe for pragmatic purposes. I might play devil's advocate here - and play into your hands too - by revealing that in the Salvation Army's eleven doctrines, there is no statement about the resurrection of Jesus Christ!! The only reference is in the last doctrine that says we believe in 'the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body'! And yet our worship is full of resurrection!
We enjoy Easter Sunday as much as anyone - even the Orthodox!
I think the reason it's not in, is that it wasn't an issue that needed to be defended when TSA started out - a bit like the classic creeds are defenses against heresy.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I have never met an evangelical whom by believing in PSA, doesn't recognise the necessity and the glory of the resurrection!
But it's not necessary.
All that's necessary is that Jesus dies in our place, facing God's wrath. The resurrection in the context of PSA is just a 'tada!" All the efficacy is in the death, none of it in the resurrection.
This would be true if evangelicals believed the only problem we face is God's wrath. We don't. Therefore, whilst PSA is central to us, "just" (not that I would ever put it that way!)saving us from God's wrath is not the totality of salvation.
In short, this is a straw man.
Anyway, I'm really not sure if I can do PSA, the thread that wouldn't die, again!
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
I....Will...Resist!!!
Seriously, Scuffleball, the aformentioned thread, all sixty-odd pages of it, can be found here . Confusingly, it is entitled with the name of one of the other prominent atonement theories, but there should be plenty to keep you going for a very long time!
--------------------
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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Sorry, my post reads as if it were a reply to Lep, with whom I cross-posted, and whose views, though they differ from mine, I regard with great respect. Apologies for any confusion.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by tessaB
Personally I would prefer to have a theory of Christ's death and resurrection that did not involve a wrathful and rather petty sounding God making damn sure that someone paid for all the sins in the world.
However, I cannot quite bring myself to throw it all out particularly bearing in mind
Romans 3:24-26
I think it's quite illuminating that you see that passage as supportive of PSA, whereas I see it is an important text in refuting the idea that PSA is a Scriptural doctrine. Surely, the point that Paul is making is that the death of Christ confounds human ideas of justice, subverting them away from punishment towards restoration. The Christ Event (His life, death, resurrection and ascension) reveals God's attitude to justice as being restorative and not retributive.
--------------------
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
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
we forgive our brother 70 times 7 on the basis that we have first been forgiven by Gpod - we reflect his provision of salvation and grace.
But God's provision of such forgiveness lies not only ion love but in his own satisfaction of the law of justrice.
He judged sin in his Son so that we might be forgiven. There can be no forgiveness without the doing away of sin in a just manner that satisfies God's holiness and hatred of sin.
Again, it's not just. If God loves justice, he doesn't punish the innocent. Even once.
This might be a problem with language, but I think it's a problem with the model.
If God demands perfect justice, then punishing the innocent, including Himself in the body of His Son, is wrong. It's simply not justice - it makes a mockery of justice.
Now grace and mercy can also make a mockery of justice, forgiveness that is freely given and not earned likewise...
This. And you do not condemn anyone you love to eternal torture. It is the platonic ideal of the opposite of love. It is also the platonic ideal of the opposite of justice.
As for punishing his son that we might be forgiven, if I beat up my cat that my aunt might be forgiven that wouldn't be anything to do with justice. It would also be grounds for calling the RSPCA.
As for God's holiness, you and others like you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. If we look at the life of Jesus of Nazareth, arguably the holiest man to have ever existed, we don't find a man who denounced prostitutes and tax collectors. We find one who made them and other de facto sinners his friends and got pissed off at those supposed to be holy (Rabbis, Pharisees). Unless you wish to call Jesus unholy that (going to those considered unclean and seeking to bring them into the light rather than Smiting The Ungodly) is the model of holiness. I consider the sort of 'holiness' that recoils from sinners and to be weak and insecure and reveal a fundamental weakness in the so-called holy. And the sort of 'holiness' that demands punishment rather than seeks to nurture into the light to be a perversion of actual holiness.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
originally posted by tessaB
Personally I would prefer to have a theory of Christ's death and resurrection that did not involve a wrathful and rather petty sounding God making damn sure that someone paid for all the sins in the world.
However, I cannot quite bring myself to throw it all out particularly bearing in mind
Romans 3:24-26
I think it's quite illuminating that you see that passage as supportive of PSA, whereas I see it is an important text in refuting the idea that PSA is a Scriptural doctrine. Surely, the point that Paul is making is that the death of Christ confounds human ideas of justice, subverting them away from punishment towards restoration. The Christ Event (His life, death, resurrection and ascension) reveals God's attitude to justice as being restorative and not retributive.
I would see it as being restorative as well - but using PSA.
People have a huge problem with the wrath of God. I don't. The reason being that God's wrath is 'slow' - slow to anger and swift to bless, etc.
The wrath of God against our sin is held back, not meted out - the Psalmist declared (with relief?) that 'he doesn't treat us as our sins deserve.'. Therefore God is NOT the vengeful, wrathful God that people who hate PSA charicature him to be.
His wrath was reserved for one moment in time - Calvary - and for one person - his Son. It is measured, restrained and proportionate and on the cross, the wrath of God, the curse, was levelled at Jesus who took upon himself the sin of the world. The very incarnation was God being made in the likeness of sinful flesh; Jesus was made sin for us so that the wrath of God would onece and for all be expressed against that sin, so that whosoever believes shall not perish but have everlasting life.
Is that self-sacrifice of Jesus, that satisfies justice, removes sin, gains a victory of death and evil, not the most wonderful act and example of love there has ever been? Is the fact that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself not too wonderful for words? Is the fact that sin is done away with, the price is paid and the wrath of God is propitiated not such good news that all we can do is worship Him?
Penal Substitutionary Atonement might make us feel a little queasy - and maybe it should - because grace does dlo things that are a bit over the top and, like so much, it's a mystery of faith; not least that it's a mystery that God did it at all:
Amazing love! How can it be that thou my God shouldst die for me?
The truth is this:
- We cannot fathom the love of God.
- No one theory can explain the atonement.
- Every theory has its limit before it is 'stretched'.
- No one theory alone is sufficient.
- Every theory finds a particular resonance with some and not with others.
- Some people just can't 'see' the value of particular theories.
- I might say that it doesn't matter! If moral influence brings you to the cross, then wonderful! If Christus Victor floats your spiritual boat and brings affirmation of salvation, then rejouce in it.
If ransom is the one that brings you to God, then glory in it. If PSA is the one that is precious to you and your need for forgiveness, then it's what you need to claim!
- The truth is it's the cross that saves you - however it works! and not the theories we use to make it understandable.
- and finally, in all these debates we need to remember that actually no-one truly understands and while we all preach Christ crucified (and totall risen again!), the cross is a scandal and it is utter foolishness to those who do not believe but it's the power of God for us!
Yes, it might offend the sense of justice.
Yes it might upset our ideas of what love is.
Yes, the idea of the innocent suffering might be a scandal.
Yes, the thought that God can indeed suffer might be a stumbling block, but hey, Paul had to cope with that and Jesus himself was crucified because religious people thought they know more about God than God himself!
When you kneel for the Eucharist next time does it really matter what theory you have in mid? What is important is that you trust him to save you and keep you in eternal life.
As for me, I like them all!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's about a loving God dealing with his own wrath, willingly, on our behalf in the person of his life-sacrificing eternal Son.
...and that's the God you can keep.
BTW, when argued about on a thread like this, it might well look like a straw man, but it's when working with people who have been damaged by the angry God concept or who have lost faith because of it that I could easily despair.
He's a God of LOVE not of wrath, and the PSA analogy only works in the rarefied sphere of those who know what analogies really are. For the rest, a angry God is just about as much a distortion as a fluffy God!
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
I'm with Leo and Lep in not being bothered to discuss the content of PSA again.
Scuffleball - there is a very long thread with the title CV you could check out if you want to find out more.
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
Is PSA bogie? Is it in the œcumenical creeds and if not can we consider it a necessary part of Christianity?
I will comment on the attitude to PSA on the ship though.
You will not find PSA in any of the ecumenical creeds because you will not find any atonement models enshrined there.
This leads to a common passive-aggressive reaction to PSA on the ship sometimes. On the one hand a frequent complaint is against 'PSA only' types who (it is alleged) say you can't be a Christian unless you believe in PSA. "But it's not in the ecumenical creeds" is the chant. On the other hand, the same people will attack PSA and say that they don't think it should be a Christian model of the atonement...
Saucy PSA, goosey CV and gander moral exemplar.
If we are going to bang on about "it's not in the creeds" then I think we've only got two options:
1. Accept all atonement models as having being embraced by the church for centuries. And so whenever PSA is mentioned we equally embrace it alongside all other models - since the creeds do not nail down which model.
2. Argue about which models we think fit best scripture and tradition.
If we go for no. 2 then let's be honest about it and stop all this "it's only the nasty evangelicals who want to say what people believe is not the real (TM) gospel."
Some people try for a third option which is to say that all models are pictures that they accept ..."I just happen never to use PSA". That is simply a cop out. If you never actually use a model then have the guts to be clear about option 2 - you've ruled it out as not being accord with scripture or tradition.
If PSA, as has often been described, is sub-Christian then anyone who says that it is the centre of their gospel clearly believes a different gospel. I think the following two positions are equally exclusive:
- "You're not a Christian if you don't believe in PSA."
- "You're gospel is sub-Christian if you do believe in PSA."
[PS - I've just finished reading Rob Bell's book - Love Wins. One of the interesting things that struck me was his chapter on the cross. He went for the 'lots of different images' routine. But I noticed that he studiously avoided to use substitutionary language, never mind penal. Fair enough if you reject PSA. But come clean and say so. Have the balls to say that you think PSA is a false gospel.]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
For more discussion of PSA on recent previous threads see here and here
That is if you still have the will to live after you have read the 60+ pages of the Christus victor thread...
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
That is if you still have the will to live after you have read the 60+ pages of the Christus victor thread...
I really enjoyed that thread. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I won't say that PSA is a false Gospel, Johnny S, not because I lack the cajones but because I don't see bad fruit in everyone who espouses it - and it served me pretty well as a model for a long time. Not that you can argue from personal experience purely, of course, as Mudfrog has reminded us.
Incidentally, Mudfrog, your waxing lyrical reminded me of a good day in my GLE days ... and, yes, I can still go weak at the knees at all of that. I'm not sure I've rejected PSA so much as modified it a bit ... I agree with Johnny S that there are entrenched positions and binariness on both (all) sides of this one.
I would agree that if we accept the wrath and justice of God premise, then PSA does deal with that in a way that Christus Victor and some of the other atonement models don't. But taken on its own, I'd suggest that PSA doesn't adequately deal with the other aspects of the atonement that the other models convey.
For my money, I think John Stott is the best on this one in his 'The Cross of Christ' which does defend the classic PSA position whilst giving due weight to the other models and handling it in such a way as to avoid the grotesque aspects that often creep in to PSA language.
That said, PSA only 'works' as a model if you accept a Western juridical view of sin and salvation - it's something of a non-issue to the Orthodox because their whole anthropology and soteriology is expressed differently - the whole Original Sin thing is different - ancestral sin rather than original sin in the Augustinian sense.
I suspect that if one were to adopt the Orthodox line then PSA becomes a non-issue and a very bewildering concept. Just as, to those of us accustomed to the Western view, their way of handling these things appears unsettlingly different and peculiar.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's about a loving God dealing with his own wrath, willingly, on our behalf in the person of his life-sacrificing eternal Son.
...and that's the God you can keep.
BTW, when argued about on a thread like this, it might well look like a straw man, but it's when working with people who have been damaged by the angry God concept or who have lost faith because of it that I could easily despair.
He's a God of LOVE not of wrath, and the PSA analogy only works in the rarefied sphere of those who know what analogies really are. For the rest, a angry God is just about as much a distortion as a fluffy God!
In which case you have to make sure you define wrath properly.
This from NT Wright's sermon 'The Word of the Cross' (hardly an American fundamentalist):
quote:
"The first challenge comes...in the temptation to water down the message of the cross so that it becomes less offensive, more palatable to the ordinary sensible mind..."
He talks about caricatures, including the one of "an angry God and a loving Jesus, a loving God who demands blood and doesn't much mind whose it is along as it's innocent...But once we have got rid of the caricature, we are ready to face the reality...of the cross."
"Face it, to deny God's wrath is, at bottom, to deny God's love. When God sees human beings enslaved, if God doesn't hate it, he is not a loving God. 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. When God sees people lying and cheating and abusing one another, exploiting and grafting and preying on one another, if God were to say 'never mind, I love you all anyway', he is neither good nor loving. The Bible does not speak of a God of generalized benevolence. It speaks of the God who made the world and loves it so passionately that he must and does hate everything that distorts and defaces the world...
...The Bible tells the story about the creator God...finally stepping onto the stage to play the solo part (where) he would come and take upon himself, in the person of his Son, the pain and shame, yes the horror and darkness, yes, but also in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, in Paul and cts and Hebrews and I Peter and Revelation, in Ignatuis, Irenaeus and Augustine and Aquinas, in Luther and Calvin, and cranmer and Hooker, in Herbert and Donne and Wesley and Watts - that he would take upon himself the condemnation which, precisely because he loves us to the uttermost, he must pronounce over that deadly disease we call sin. To deny thism as some would do today as they have for hundreds of years, is to deny the depth and weight of sin and the deeper depth and heavier weight of God's redeeming love. The word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
I believe that outside academia, people do want a God who is angry at injustice, sin, filth and despair. They also want a God who has done something about it.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I won't say that PSA is a false Gospel, Johnny S, not because I lack the cajones but because I don't see bad fruit in everyone who espouses it - and it served me pretty well as a model for a long time. Not that you can argue from personal experience purely, of course, as Mudfrog has reminded us.
Incidentally, Mudfrog, your waxing lyrical reminded me of a good day in my GLE days ... and, yes, I can still go weak at the knees at all of that. I'm not sure I've rejected PSA so much as modified it a bit ... I agree with Johnny S that there are entrenched positions and binariness on both (all) sides of this one.
I would agree that if we accept the wrath and justice of God premise, then PSA does deal with that in a way that Christus Victor and some of the other atonement models don't. But taken on its own, I'd suggest that PSA doesn't adequately deal with the other aspects of the atonement that the other models convey.
For my money, I think John Stott is the best on this one in his 'The Cross of Christ' which does defend the classic PSA position whilst giving due weight to the other models and handling it in such a way as to avoid the grotesque aspects that often creep in to PSA language.
That said, PSA only 'works' as a model if you accept a Western juridical view of sin and salvation - it's something of a non-issue to the Orthodox because their whole anthropology and soteriology is expressed differently - the whole Original Sin thing is different - ancestral sin rather than original sin in the Augustinian sense.
I suspect that if one were to adopt the Orthodox line then PSA becomes a non-issue and a very bewildering concept. Just as, to those of us accustomed to the Western view, their way of handling these things appears unsettlingly different and peculiar.
Thanks Gamaliel.
Are there any groups that say ONLY PSA is a valid atonement theory? Surely not! If there is any strong support of the theory then I giuess it's a defensive position and that people highhlight it because of those people say 'any theory EXCEPT PSA'.
My psoiution - and tbh, the position of most people I've come across, is that all are good but that none of them stand up on their own - not even PSA.
Having said that, most evangelicals would say that substitution (penal or otherwise) is the central one around which all the others are equally valuable.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Mudfrog, I'm not trying to trip you up or trying to play you into my hands ... and yes, you are right that there are no evangelical statements of faith that don't deal with the Resurrection. And, yes, with the Sally Army's non-mention of the Resurrection in the statements of faith you're referring to, I would agree with your analysis and wouldn't take it as evidence that because it's not listed then the SA mustn't believe in the Resurrection.
No, you misunderstand me. What I have SEEN and HEARD, and I made it clear I was going on anecdotal evidence, is quite definitely an overplaying of the Cross and a downplaying of the Resurrection in SOME (but by no means all) evangelical prayers, in sermons and in conversation.
It's not that the resurrection isn't there, but it is sometimes weakened.
I've often heard, 'he was delivered over to death for our sins' without the rest of the verse (Romans 4:25) 'he was raised to life for our justification.'
Listening to some (not all) evangelicals you could get the impression that it ended at the Cross and the Resurrection was an afterthought.
Of course, this is the result of sloppiness rather than deliberate policy. In the same way that people's Trinitarian language is often pretty sloppy. I attended an Orthodox conference last week an twice during some feed-back sessions Fr Gregory had to correct speakers who had referred to God the Holy Spirit as 'it' rather than 'he'. "'He,' brother, 'he' if you would, God is always personal. I will try not interrupt anyone speaking again but only if they do not use a personal pronoun ..."
If you'd been there you'd have heard me mutter an 'Amen'.
That's all I was saying.
I recently attended an Orthodox service where they venerated the Cross at the end. I can't remember the words of the hymnody used to accompany this - Mousethief can enlighten us - but it struck me that it combined the Cross AND Resurrection in a very beautiful way. One which would have made you go weak at the knees, I'm sure, just as it did with me.
Whichever side of the Schism we are, it's not either/or but both.
--------------------
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
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
For my money, I think John Stott is the best on this one in his 'The Cross of Christ' which does defend the classic PSA position whilst giving due weight to the other models and handling it in such a way as to avoid the grotesque aspects that often creep in to PSA language.
Interesting. John Stott says that if you ditch PSA (or has he handily renames it, "self substitution for self satisfaction)you CANNOT have any of the other atonement models - they only "work" if PSA is central. He uses the image of the hub and spokes of a bicycle. Is that your position Gamaliel? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I believe that outside academia, people do want a God who is angry at injustice, sin, filth and despair. They also want a God who has done something about it.
I'd sign up to that.
I'm just not sure that PSA deals with it - if anything, it colludes with it.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure - sorry, we cross-posted Mudfrog.
Yes, the substitutionary aspect is emphasised strongly in the evangelical traditions - and doesn't appear to be there to the same extent (if at all? ![[Confused]](confused.gif) ) in the Orthodox take on these things. Could it be that they have gone to the other extreme? Or maybe it just isn't an issue with me nor something that they feel the need to thrash out necessarily.
MT can enlighten us, but from what I can gather it's more a case of 'on behalf of' rather than 'instead of'. God didn't kill Christ, it was wicked men. Yet it was God's set purpose and foreknowledge. All these things are mysteries before which it is wise, ultimately, to remain silent.
That's not to say that we shouldn't debate though, and I agree with Johnny S that some anti-PSA people are so intemperate in their views that rational debate becomes difficult. Illiberal liberals and all that ...
But it's all beyond me ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I wonder if some evangelicals are so 'hot' on getting people saved and forgiven, that the cross is the BIG issue ands the resurrection is, well, that after-thought you spoke of. They are wrong of course!
I get annoyed when I hear people quoting verses like 'The wages of sin is death.' But then they don't say, 'but the free gift of God is eternal,life through Christ our Lord.'
why do people shout the bad stuff but never celebrate the good stuff!
'The end is nigh' - but about celebrating the wonderful and beautiful coming Kingdom?
It's true then, there are people who take the message and only highlight one part - which is, of course, how cults begin.
I also hate it when the holy Spirit is referred to as an 'it'
... and a 'she'.
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
