homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Among mainline denominations what is the dominant theory of the atonement? (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  ...  9  10  11 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Among mainline denominations what is the dominant theory of the atonement?
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have heard from some that in mainline Protestant denominations, the dominant theology of the atonement is the Moral Influence theory.

Here is the Wikipedia info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_influence_theory_of_atonement

Would this be fair to say? I know that among most mainline authors I know that PSA is not in favor.

[ 20. September 2012, 13:38: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think this horse still plods gamely in its GIN mill.

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
PSA is not mainline. But nor is moral influence - that theory is weak because it is subjective.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
PSA is not mainline.

You may dislike of it but it is absurd to pretend that it hasn't been one of the most influential - perhaps the most influential - description of the mechanism of atonement in Christian churches. You can't make your point by rewriting history.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hosting

This isn't a Dead Horse. Please remember to check the guidelines! Am moving the thread to Purg.

cheers,
L
Dead Horses Host
hosting off

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
PSA is alive and well.

I would however make a plea.

The 'theories of atonement' - called such no longer - are facets of a diamond. They are all substantiated by Scripture and add to a beautifully rounded picture of what Jesus did for us on the cross.

Take the hymns you sang on Good Friday and you will perhaps see a different 'theory' in each one.

We would be all the poorer if we only sang hymns about the moral influence theory.

Finally, as these are theories of 'atonement' I would want to suggest that any theory should actually be effectual - ie it must describe something God does on our behalf. Any theory that presents a truth but leaves us to do something about it, is deficient.

Also, any theory that does not reveal how God has actually dealt with my sin, forgiven it, removed it, cleansed and atoned for it, is similarly deficient. If the cross doesn't literally take away my sin, then I don't need to know 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
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ken:
You may dislike of it but it is absurd to pretend that it hasn't been one of the most influential - perhaps the most influential - description of the mechanism of atonement in Christian churches. You can't make your point by rewriting history

No one would deny the enormous influence of PSA on Christian churches, but only in the last 500 years, since the Reformation. As the linked wiki article show, there are much older atonement theories such as Moral Influence and Christus Victor, which go back to the Church Fathers. Though I have little time either for ransom or satisfaction models, even St Augustine emphasised Moral Influence in much of his writings. The great Anglican Caroline Divine, Lancelot Andrewes, attacked PSA as an innovation. By the same token he was happy to attack contemporary Catholicism for the additions it had made to the teachings of Ecumenical Councils and the Patristic tradion. While no one can rule out additional revelation in our understanding, it's always safest to go back to the roots.

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The 'theories of atonement' - called such no longer - are facets of a diamond.

This idea has a lot to commend it. Perhaps our limited human brains can't take in the Divine Mysteries, so we must make of them what we can. Christ's moral inluence, His sacrificial death and His victory over sin, death and the devil are how I understand atonement, but we aren't all alike.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378

 - Posted      Profile for Gramps49   Email Gramps49   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
For me atonement focuses on faith in Christ and on his death on our behalf, leading to a positive final judgment based on what Christ has done for us and our trust in that - not on any positive moral qualities that we ourselves possess. Some call this the penal substitution of atonement. Here God is making us one (at-one-ment). It is a relational theology, nor a moral theology.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged
balaam

Making an ass of myself
# 4543

 - Posted      Profile for balaam   Author's homepage   Email balaam   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
PSA did a good job of speaking into a a modernistic society. Older theories have done their work speaking into pre-modern societies. All of them are good in their own way, and none of them explains every aspect of what God achieved in the passion. [Hello Mudfrog.] All of them are good tools in their own right.

But to speak to a post-modern world, rather than go back to something like Christus Victor or Moral Influence why not develop something that speaks into a post-modern world without compromising the gospel message. It will be criticised for being initiative, but then what model of atonement isn't criticised?

The Gospel writers told the story of the atonement as a narrative. It would be good in post-modern times to return to a narrative form, though I am not convinced a post-modern narrative would necessarily resemble a pre-modern one.

--------------------
Last ever sig ...

blog

Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383

 - Posted      Profile for Yerevan   Email Yerevan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Maybe the dominant theory of the atonement in mainline churches is that there isn't any need to have a dominant theory of the atonement, if that makes sense?
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651

 - Posted      Profile for Starlight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I have heard from some that in mainline Protestant denominations, the dominant theology of the atonement is the Moral Influence theory.

I would think that among Unitarians that Moral Influence would be dominant.

In most Protestant denominations PSA has massive influence, with Moral Influence and Christus Victor views being quite far behind in number of advocates.

It's a fair safe bet though that you'll find more people who reject PSA and advocate Moral Influence in a Mainline church than you will in a Evangelical one.

Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651

 - Posted      Profile for Starlight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The 'theories of atonement' - called such no longer - are facets of a diamond. They are all substantiated by Scripture and add to a beautifully rounded picture of what Jesus did for us on the cross.

That last bit strikes me as paradoxical: A lot of atonement theories focus on other things than the cross - especially Moral Influence. A "rounded" picture of "the cross" isn't a very rounded picture.

It's all very nice to say you want to combine multiple views into one, but what do you do with conflicts between the views? eg John Stott's attempt to "harmonize" Moral Influence and PSA ended up keeping all of PSA and tossing the vast majority of Moral Influence theory out and calling it a "harmonization". Moral Influence and PSA tend to have pretty much mutually exclusive views of sin, judgment, human ability, and the problem facing humanity. Moral Influence theory is intimately connected with the notion of a final judgment according to deeds, and with a human ability to do good. So if you reject the notion of humans needing to something, or think that humans can't do works good enough to please God, or think that there's nothing humans can do that will let them pass the final judgment, then you have rejected virtually all of Moral Influence theory. If your "version" of Moral Influence theory boils down to "Jesus taught some good stuff, but don't get tricked into thinking that following his teachings will lead to salvation" then I would suggest that you don't endorse Moral Influence theory at all.

quote:
Finally, as these are theories of 'atonement' I would want to suggest that any theory should actually be effectual - ie it must describe something God does on our behalf. Any theory that presents a truth but leaves us to do something about it, is deficient.
Why?

quote:
Also, any theory that does not reveal how God has actually dealt with my sin, forgiven it, removed it, cleansed and atoned for it, is similarly deficient. If the cross doesn't literally take away my sin, then I don't need to know about it.
So basically, you reject Moral Influence theory then.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Finally, as these are theories of 'atonement' I would want to suggest that any theory should actually be effectual - ie it must describe something God does on our behalf. Any theory that presents a truth but leaves us to do something about it, is deficient.
Why?

quote:
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures
1 Cor 15:3 must be the starting point for any discussion of the atonement, and IMHO leaves very little space for a 'moral example' model.

[Full disclosure - I'm currently writing an essay on the issue, so I'm hoping to sharpen my ideas up here. The main thing I've learnt as a result is to appreciate views other than PSA - as alternative facets of the diamond - but I do regard PSA as a legitimate one]

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
1 Cor 15:3 must be the starting point for any discussion of the atonement, and IMHO leaves very little space for a 'moral example' model.

I don't think it's that simple, or that 1 Cor 15.3 rules out Moral Influence. That Christ died "according to the Scriptures" can mean both according to the OT prophecies concerning the Messiah, and/or according to a fulfillment of the Temple sacrificial system. Sacrifice was never about the blood of lambs, goats or turtle doves. It was about the contrition, humility and sacrifice of self which accompanies the ritual.

You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;
you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart
you, God, will not despise. (Ps 51 17-18)

In John 12.32-33 Jesus says " And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die."

One purpose of lifting something up is so it can be seen. Jesus was lifted up so the whole world can see His sacrifice, but in receiving Him in the Eucharist, it's important that we sacrifice our own sins on the altar in union with His sacrifice.

Finally, in Matthew 25, which contains some of His hardest sayings about judgement, the judgement is always for not following His example to feed the poor, clothe the naked, heal the sick and take in the stranger. I don't see how you can separtae His example from His requirements for salvation.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Like I stated recently in Kerygmania, I've personally become recently in the ideas about the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus as put forward by Jürgen Moltman. The idea that during the Crucifixion, God experienced what it is be like to be abandoned by God, definitely has an appeal to me.

I haven't read much about it besides a first introduction, so I definitely wouldn't be able to defend those ideas yet, but to me it's certainly worth studying further.

[ 09. April 2012, 10:22: Message edited by: tclune ]

--------------------
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
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651

 - Posted      Profile for Starlight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures"
1 Cor 15:3 must be the starting point for any discussion of the atonement, and IMHO leaves very little space for a 'moral example' model.

I see three different possibilities for understanding 1 Cor 15:3 in a way compatible with the Moral Influence model.

1) In the Moral Influence view, Christ's teachings offer salvation from sin. When those teachings were opposed, Christ deliberately continued his teachings in the face of opposition and this resulted in his death. Given a choice between stopping teaching and so not saving us, and saving us and being killed for it, Christ took the option of saving us and being killed. Christ thus died to save us from sin, ie he was prepared to suffer death rather than cease his work to save us from sin. The Moral Influence view can thus fully endorse any statement of the form "Christ died to save us from sin", or "Christ gave his life for us". A Moral Influence view of atonement would understandably lead to Paul making such statements, and thus Paul making such a statement is consistent with him holding a Moral Influence view.

2) Moral Influence views generally see Christ's death as a martyrdom and/or powerful example. Christ's death is seen to have a significant degree of saving power in and of itself, as it can provide a powerful psychological catalyst and motivation for change in people's lives. Christ's death can thus be described in a Moral Influence paradigm as saving people from sin in and of itself. Thus not only can a Moral Influence advocate affirm that Christ died to save us from sin (as in 1 above), but that Christ's death itself saves us from sin.

3) Paul could be saying that humanity killed Christ and that was a sinful act. ie "Christ died because we sinned by killing him, as the scriptures foretold". Read this way, Paul is not actually mentioning the atonement at all.

All these interpretations appear to me to be compatible with Paul's words in 1 Cor 15:3. Unfortunately it is such a short and concise passage that it doesn't provide us with enough information to choose between those three readings (or any other readings, eg a PSA one). Fortunately, Paul has left us many other writings and we don't have to try to guess Paul's teachings based on one sentence alone in 1 Cor 15:3.

Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In the various Wesleyan traditions, the basic thrust of atonement theory goes pretty much like this: God became flesh to bridge the gap between God and man; man killed God in response; God rose from the dead as the ultimate refusal to take "No" as an answer from us.

The crucifixion is viewed as the ultimate act of human sin, not as the ultimate act of Divine love -- that is reserved for the resurrection. If God can continue to love us when we killed Him as cruelly as we possibly could, we can have assurance that the many lesser sins that we commit and believe "separate" us from God in fact do no such thing.

As an aside, it was very common when I was growing up to be told that one of the great differences between Catholicism and [Wesleyan] Protestanism is the emphasis on the resurrection over the crucifixion. That is why the Protestant cross is empty, while Catholicism uses a crucifix. I have no idea whether there is merit in that view, especially given the empty cross being used by Calvinist Protestants, too. But, as a small historical fact, that was commonly asesrted in my youth.

--Tom Clune

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures"
1 Cor 15:3 must be the starting point for any discussion of the atonement, and IMHO leaves very little space for a 'moral example' model.

I see three different possibilities for understanding 1 Cor 15:3 in a way compatible with the Moral Influence model.

1) In the Moral Influence view, Christ's teachings offer salvation from sin. When those teachings were opposed, Christ deliberately continued his teachings in the face of opposition and this resulted in his death. Given a choice between stopping teaching and so not saving us, and saving us and being killed for it, Christ took the option of saving us and being killed. Christ thus died to save us from sin, ie he was prepared to suffer death rather than cease his work to save us from sin. The Moral Influence view can thus fully endorse any statement of the form "Christ died to save us from sin", or "Christ gave his life for us". A Moral Influence view of atonement would understandably lead to Paul making such statements, and thus Paul making such a statement is consistent with him holding a Moral Influence view.

2) Moral Influence views generally see Christ's death as a martyrdom and/or powerful example. Christ's death is seen to have a significant degree of saving power in and of itself, as it can provide a powerful psychological catalyst and motivation for change in people's lives. Christ's death can thus be described in a Moral Influence paradigm as saving people from sin in and of itself. Thus not only can a Moral Influence advocate affirm that Christ died to save us from sin (as in 1 above), but that Christ's death itself saves us from sin.

3) Paul could be saying that humanity killed Christ and that was a sinful act. ie "Christ died because we sinned by killing him, as the scriptures foretold". Read this way, Paul is not actually mentioning the atonement at all.

All these interpretations appear to me to be compatible with Paul's words in 1 Cor 15:3. Unfortunately it is such a short and concise passage that it doesn't provide us with enough information to choose between those three readings (or any other readings, eg a PSA one). Fortunately, Paul has left us many other writings and we don't have to try to guess Paul's teachings based on one sentence alone in 1 Cor 15:3.

The bit your reply left out was reference to 'according to the scriptures'. That's where this has to be based, not some ultimately vague handwaving argument about Jesus death. The sacrifice for sin motif of the Old Testament, the day of Atonement, Passover etc. all have to fit into the model to some extent. I just can't see any of that in your approach.

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208

 - Posted      Profile for Twangist   Author's homepage   Email Twangist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
All you have to do if define the word "mainline" in such a way that your pet theory is top dog and bingo ....
Or you could try reading and decoding the various confessions, Articles etc ....

--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog

Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Sacrifice was never about the blood of lambs, goats or turtle doves. It was about the contrition, humility and sacrifice of self which accompanies the ritual.

You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;
you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart
you, God, will not despise. (Ps 51 17-18)

In John 12.32-33 Jesus says " And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die."

One purpose of lifting something up is so it can be seen. Jesus was lifted up so the whole world can see His sacrifice, but in receiving Him in the Eucharist, it's important that we sacrifice our own sins on the altar in union with His sacrifice.

Interesting.
I agree with you entirely that the OT sacrificies had to be accompanied by humility and contrition; that is entirely what Psalm 51 is all about. David was prostrate with grief over his sin and was at rock bottom - there was no self to stand in the way of receiving God's forgiveness.

What I would highlight is that although the quoted verse says that God does not delight in sacrifices and burnt offerings, nevertheless they are required. When David cries out 'Cleanse me with hyssop, and I shall be clean.' he is referring to the practice of the blood of the sacrifice being flung around after the hyssop leaves were dipped in it; he is asking that the blood be sprinkled on him in order to cleanse him.

And then, at the end of the Psalm he cries out in joy, 'Then there will be righteous sacrifices, whole burnt offerings to delight you; then bulls will be offered on your altar.'

Personally I think that when David spooke about God not wanting sacrifice, it was David's own feeling of futility - it's like when I have sinned I can never pray in those moments - it's as if I'm saying, 'Prayers you do not want, words are just not enough, maybe I shouldn't even be here at church.'

Sacrifice was still the foundation of atonement - blood sacrifice is at the heart of it all.


Now, as far as being lifted up is concerned, that was a colloquialism for crucifixion. He told them he was going to be 'lifted up' (like our 'strung up when being hanged by a rope) 'to show them what kind of death he was going to suffer.

--------------------
"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
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651

 - Posted      Profile for Starlight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The bit your reply left out was reference to 'according to the scriptures'. That's where this has to be based, not some ultimately vague handwaving argument about Jesus death. The sacrifice for sin motif of the Old Testament, the day of Atonement, Passover etc. all have to fit into the model to some extent. I just can't see any of that in your approach.

Ender, the two common interpretations of Paul's phrase "according to the scriptures" in commentaries I've seen are (1) that Christ's death and resurrection was part of God's Plan, and thus "according to the scriptures" means "according to God's will", and (2) that Christ's death and resurrection were "foretold" in some sense in various prophecies in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea etc.

The idea that Paul is here referencing the OT notion of sacrifice, or the passover, or the Day of Atonement, by saying "according to the scriptures" is not a common reading of this passage even among PSA advocates as far as I know. Note Paul also states that Christ's resurrection was "according to the scriptures", and the resurrection has no obvious link to the things you mention.

My "approach" is based on trying to understand what the NT Christians thought and taught about Jesus' death. It is certainly necessary to understand their ideas of sacrifice, Passover etc and to look carefully at how they use such language in regard to Jesus' death. Many Christians today have a lot of mistaken assumptions about sacrifice, as our culture is unfamiliar with sacrificial practices. Studying the thinking of societies that practice sacrifices and studying the Biblical sacrificial language carefully is therefore important. Such study provides a number of arguments against a PSA view of the atonement, and provides support for a Moral Influence view. ie what the Bible has to say about sacrifices goes against PSA and supports a Moral Influence view, not vice versa.

Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599

 - Posted      Profile for footwasher   Email footwasher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Like I stated recently in Kerygmania, I've personally become recently in the ideas about the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus as put forward by Jürgen Moltman. The idea that during the Crucifixion, God experienced what it is be like to be abandoned by God, definitely has an appeal to me.

I haven't read much about it besides a first introduction, so I definitely wouldn't be able to defend those ideas yet, but
to me it's certainly worth studying further.

If Dan Wallace is right, and Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, then the verse could read,

Pere, Pere , la crucifixion, cest ma raison detre !


What Atonement Theory needs is a grand unified explanation, if not a Theory of Everything...

--------------------
Ship's crimp

Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
PSA is not mainline.

You may dislike of it but it is absurd to pretend that it hasn't been one of the most influential - perhaps the most influential - description of the mechanism of atonement in Christian churches. You can't make your point by rewriting history.
It may have influence but isn't 'offical' in mainline denoms. The C of E expressly denies it. The RCC Gookd Friday Liturgy is Christus Victor.

As for 'rewriting history', it is the advocates of PSA who do that. It's a fairly recent 'teaching' but its advocates co-ope Anselm into it.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208

 - Posted      Profile for Twangist   Author's homepage   Email Twangist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Many Christians today have a lot of mistaken assumptions about sacrifice, as our culture is unfamiliar with sacrificial practices. Studying the thinking of societies that practice sacrifices and studying the Biblical sacrificial language carefully is therefore important
Whilst I concur with your first point above, I suspect that there is a risk with the methodology described of creating some "interesting" (read distoring)lenses through which to interpret the OT as there are probably as many differenat "theologies" of sacrifrice as cultures that practice (or once did) it.

--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog

Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
tclune, as you've defined it there, the Wesleyan view is very similar to the Orthodox one, as I understand it.

Nevertheless, there are plenty of Wesleyan/Wesleyan-influenced Christians who embrace PSA. Mudfrog here is one of them.

In the independent charismatic circles I moved in, the prevailing view was a mixture of PSA and the Wesleyan one as you've outlined it, with elements of Christus Victor too.

I'm not sure how 'mainline' is being defined here. It strikes me that there are people in the mainline churches and denominations who hold to all of the various views that are being debated here.

I'm not sure there's any dominant model within the CofE, say, as opposed to Methodism - but the emphasis on PSA will vary - with liberals and some of the more catholic and 'Orthodox' people remaining wary of it - and the more Calvinistic types (and some of the Wesleyans) being enthusiastic PSA-ers.

--------------------
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
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208

 - Posted      Profile for Twangist   Author's homepage   Email Twangist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
The C of E expressly denies it.
Pity no-one told Stotty [Biased]

--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog

Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It may have influence but isn't 'offical' in mainline denoms. The C of E expressly denies it.

That's not true and you know it isn't true. There is no definitive official statement of theological belief of the Church of England beyond Scripture, the Creeds, and its liturgies - other than the Articles of course but somehow I doubt if you were thinking of them.

quote:

The RCC Gookd Friday Liturgy is Christus Victor.

Might well be, but so what? All these ways of looking at it are not mutually exclusive. Just look at the hymns and choruses we sing in church - loads of them touch all the bases (well, some of them any way)

quote:

As for 'rewriting history', it is the advocates of PSA who do that. It's a fairly recent 'teaching' but its advocates co-ope Anselm into it.

Hard not to think of Anselm, but unneccessary as it is of course in the New Testament. As just one of many descriptions of the work of Christ, of course.

The trouble with these liberal theologians is they are so prescriptive and want to tell everybody what they are allowed to believe all the time! [Snigger]

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Very interesting article by Tom Wright here which shows several things: how there are diverse views of atonement within (and beyond) the CofE, how easy it is to caricature someone else's view and then shoot it down in flames, how people's reputations can be made and lost by a few sentences they write, how some supposedly "Biblical" approaches are far too simplistic ...

As a Baptist I well remember being taught many views of the atonement at my (evangelical) alma mater - with no pressure to say that "this is right, that is wrong". I value that catholic approach. I also remember - more recently - the cries of horror directed at Steve Chalke when he suggested that a simplistic and crude PSA approach does not represent the full Biblical story of the Atonement. On the other hand, moving in more liberal circles these days, I hear their vitriolic attacks on PSA and feel they have dismissed out-of-hand anything which remotely seems to touch on it.

[ 09. April 2012, 15:31: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086

 - Posted      Profile for Hairy Biker   Email Hairy Biker   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm still not sure what people mean by "mainline", but I'm assuming it's the same as MOTR CofE?

I've always found the issue of atonement is not really discussed in any detail. "Jesus died for us" Full stop. Draw your own conclusions. Drives me mad that no one seems to want to engage the issue. Are they afraid their lack of faith will be shown up, or just not really thought about it, or just don't want to get drawn into yet another "PSA rules" kind of boo-hurrah discussion.

On the other hand, arrogant and judgmental evangelicals tend to need an arrogant and judgmental view of atonement, and PSA pretty well fits the bill. These churches are hugely successful in human terms, but they repel the masses just as successfully as they attract them.

--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst

Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah, Baptist Trainfan! The memory of a previous atonement thread comes vividly to life to this poor tired old Host. For I linked that (IMO rather good) N T Wright article in a previous thread and in particular quoted this summary from N T Wright's old tutor.

quote:
After carefully discussing all the various theories of atonement, Dr Chadwick allowed that there were of course some problems with the idea of penal substitution. But he said, 'until something like this has been said, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the full story has not yet been told.'
Then got my head in my hands from the then Orthodox-ish andreas1984( squiggle Andrew, El Greco) plus his horror that the C of E should have such a Bishop in its midst. Further evidence of Western Augustinian corruption of the truth once given.

Look out, Shipmate!

--------------------
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
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suspect atonement is one of those areas where a specific sociological phenomena happens in many mainline denominations. That is there is no dominant theory taught. If you do theology at a serious lay or above (approximately A'Level or above), you will be taught a variety of theories of atonement each seen as having different values and worth, if you only stay below that there will be teaching which is mainly devotional and is not explicit on which doctrine is actually present.

This allows for individuals to hold their own opinions without creating schism over what in the end is beyond human wisdom.

Jengie

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I suspect atonement is one of those areas where a specific sociological phenomena happens ...

Tut, tut, Jengie: "a ... phenomena", indeed!

The rest of the post is excellent - much the same as my point earlier. Anyway, why can't we see "salvation" and "atonement" as multi-faceted/layered concepts?

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Probably for the same reasons that people come up with simplistic and reductionist presentations of the Gospel in bite-sized sound-bites - as is being discussed over on another 'Sydney Anglican' stle thread.

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


On the other hand, arrogant and judgmental evangelicals tend to need an arrogant and judgmental view of atonement, and PSA pretty well fits the bill.

It'd be highly ironic if you were being arrogant and judgemental whilst writing this. [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:


On the other hand, arrogant and judgmental evangelicals tend to need an arrogant and judgmental view of atonement, and PSA pretty well fits the bill.

It'd be highly ironic if you were being arrogant and judgemental whilst writing this. [Roll Eyes]
Yes. Some posts do provoke in me the well known observation that "all generalisations are wrong, even this one".

But I try to suppress such provocation while Hosting. Not always successfully, particularly on atonement threads.

However ...

I'm off on holiday on Sunday for two weeks, which seems like the best form of avoidance strategy at present. To judge by atonement thread precedents, this one should still be chugging along when I get back. Enjoy.

--------------------
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
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599

 - Posted      Profile for footwasher   Email footwasher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jengie wrote:
quote:
I suspect atonement is one of those areas where a specific sociological phenomenon happens in many mainline denominations. That is there is no dominant theory taught.
That's because the relationship between the dominant and the minor theory hasn't been recognized. The observer is standing too close to the object being examined. He can't see the wood for the trees. He has to take a step back, unhinge a jaw and take a bite large enough to ingest an adequate bite of the dish to understand the theme, the "taste", the cuisine type/classification of the meal. It makes no sense to nibble at a caper, a fennel grain, or a flake of sole, if the intention is to benefit from the meal or to know what one is swallowing. You need to get a good mouthful to do that.

For example, we know that red blood cells supply oxygen to the various body parts, but it is also doing "x". Similarly WBCs fight infections, but it is also doing "x". Platelets and plasma also carry out separate functions but they also do "x". What is "x"?

In simple terms, "x" in this case is "solves a problem". The dominant function of the work of the various components of blood is "solves a problem". The minor functions are "supplies oxygen", "fights disease", "regulates temperature", etc. The fact that we are alive is proof that they are successful in the endeavor.

Jesus' ministry was also "x". He was successful against disease, hunger, death…

But the dominant function of His mission was to influence, indoctrinate, teach…US. HOW. TO. BE. SUCCESSFUL.


Let's work our way up gradually to the crucifixion.

Problem
Lack of wine

How it was solved
7Jesus said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.”John 2


Problem
Unclean woman

How it was solved
17The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You have correctly said, ‘I have no husband’; 18for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly.” John 4

Okay, so we see that the problems were solved by Jesus' doing deeds "no body could do unless God was with Him". And they were done by Jesus' believing that the Father would back Him up. Let's call this method "laying down one's life". Jesus' entire ministry consisted of teaching His disciples to taking on obstacles (including Law) and OVERCOMING THEM BY LAYING DOWN THEIR LIVES. Remember His words to the disciples in the middle of the storm at sea…

In His final act, He takes on the eponymous task of laying down His life and conquers it by... laying down His life!

CONCLUSION
a) The theme of Jesus' ministry was Moral Influence: the intent was to convince the disciples to follow His example.
b) The miracles were demonstrations of the efficacy of His method: they permanently removed instances of obstacles to particular people
c) The Cross was a demonstration and also a permanent removal of an obstacle to the sons of Adam. The obedience of Christ, the perfect Lamb, in taking our punishment,death, achieved payment for the consequences of ALL of mankind's sin, and the Resurrection was the carrying away of the sins of those who were taken with Him to Heaven, ie., those who believed:

4But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. Ephesians 2

It is as we walk in the Light, as He is in the Light, that the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sins. IOW, the fulfillment of the types of the sin offering goat (PSA) and the sin bearing goat (Christus Victor). We carry away our sins to that Living Tabernacle in Heaven, to be cleansed, when we have faith in the Father, the Way Jesus had faith.

--------------------
Ship's crimp

Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Aren't all theories of the atonement judgmental? I don't see what makes PSA more judgmental than the others. The only arrogant theory of the atonement is the one holding that atonement wasn't needed.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's certainly the dominant theory outside the mainline denominations (ie. in the UK population as a whole). And the one I subscribe to. I imagine most people find it vaguely comical if told they need to atone for being human.

[ 09. April 2012, 20:35: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]

Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651

 - Posted      Profile for Starlight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
Studying the thinking of societies that practice sacrifices and studying the Biblical sacrificial language carefully is therefore important

I suspect that there is a risk with the methodology described of creating some "interesting" (read distoring)lenses through which to interpret the OT as there are probably as many different "theologies" of sacrifice as cultures that practice (or once did) it.

Surprisingly, there is a massive degree of uniformity among the world's cultures in terms of their theologies of sacrifice. There are about 5 basic sacrificial concepts which reoccur throughout the hundreds of sacrificial cultures throughout human history in both ancient and modern times. Each culture uses a different subset of these concepts, and has various minor variants in their rituals and rules, but overall the similarities between cultures are particularly striking. It doesn't seem to matter whether you look at ancient Hawaiian sacrifice, modern African ones, ancient Mesopotamian ones, or modern Indian ones, they all use a selection of the same basic concepts.

I suppose it's not surprising that humans worldwide would have similar motivations and reasoning for wanting to perform sacrifices, and see similar meaning in them.

Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

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


This allows for individuals to hold their own opinions without creating schism over what in the end is beyond human wisdom.


Quite so.

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

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Many medieval and pre-Reformation theological and mystical writings such as The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis, The Theologia Germanica (anonymous-and my favourite), Meister Eckhart and The Cloud of Unknowing (another anonymous) concern themselves far more with the "Christ in us" aspect of salvation, than the "Christ for us" aspect. No one is suggesting that this is the full picture, it's like Mudfrog's facets of a diamond. but one of the great mistakes, IMO, of post Reformation theology, is its total abandonment of Moral Influence in favour or the juridical PSA.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
It's certainly the dominant theory outside the mainline denominations (ie. in the UK population as a whole). And the one I subscribe to. I imagine most people find it vaguely comical if told they need to atone for being human.

Really? I have spent quite a lot of time discussing the atonement with non-Christian twenty somethings and most seem rather surprised at the PSA aspect, believing themselves (or thinking that I believed) some weak version of moral influence - that Jesus set us an example of some sort in a Gandhi like way.
No one found it comical. Then again, no one told them they had to atone for being human. That's not part of PSA as I have ever had it explained to me.

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

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suppose if you work from a platform of "total depravity" or something like, then moral influence has nothing to say. The argument seems to be that even if folks are aware of what constitutes good behaviour via a good example, so what? The good that they would they do not.

And I am sure it is true that there was in the Reformation a strong, prevailing, strand of belief that the image of God in human beings had been irredeemably marred, by original and ongoing sin. So atonement by means of a vicarious sacrifice was seen as the only way out of the hole that humanity was in.

But, PaulH, protestant thinking has moved on and this understanding of the old, old story, is not the only one we tell these days. The criticisms and critiques of judgmentalism and simplistic approaches have had their inpact on thoughtful folks across protestantism. Faith cannot be reduced to a matter of a single assent to a particular theological proposition. Walking the walk is more important than talking the talk. I have conversations like this all the time with folks within our local nonco congo. And I suspect it is true about most places. At least I have found it so. If you want examples of a more balanced thoughtfulness, look around you amongst protestant Shipmates.

A wise ex-work colleague of mine (who was an elder in a Presbyterian church) observed that she saw no biblical advice to suggest that she should leave her head in her hat when she hung her hat on the chapel hatstand. (They didn't do compulsory hats in her neck of the woods)

Again, we do disservice to many folks when we generalise too freely about these things.

--------------------
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
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
as it is of course in the New Testament.

No it isn't. It is read back into the NT, e.g. by those who translate 'for us' as if the word was 'anti' = instead of us, instead of 'uper' = on our behalf. The latter, which is what the text says, infers that we have to die with him, through baptism.

[ 10. April 2012, 12:20: Message edited by: leo ]

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507

 - Posted      Profile for Daron     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
as it is of course in the New Testament.

No it isn't. It is read back into the NT, e.g. by those who translate 'for us' as if the word was 'anti' = instead of us, instead of 'uper' = on our behalf. The latter, which is what the text says, infers that we have to die with him, through baptism.
The fact that we are called to mystical participation in Christ's death - symbolised in water baptism - is an argument that Christ did in fact die as both our substitute and our representative. Christ now provides a safe place to die to sin (i.e. himself) in that he has died in advance for that very sin and has been risen from the dead. There is no sin for which Christ's death cannot atone, or indeed be said not to have already atoned. This is why Christ himself has become for us the safe place to crucify our flesh.

--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way

Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
The fact that we are called to mystical participation in Christ's death - symbolised in water baptism - is an argument that Christ did in fact die as both our substitute and our representative. Christ now provides a safe place to die to sin (i.e. himself) in that he has died in advance for that very sin and has been risen from the dead. There is no sin for which Christ's death cannot atone, or indeed be said not to have already atoned. This is why Christ himself has become for us the safe place to crucify our flesh.

I confess that this sounds more like a reductio argument against substitutionary atonement than a defense of it. I really can't quite bring myself to believe that anyone actually finds these kinds of sentences to be meaningful, let alone true. Obviously, YMMV.

--Tom Clune

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
... one of the great mistakes, IMO, of post Reformation theology, is its total abandonment of Moral Influence in favour or the juridical PSA.

Well, it would be if it happened, but of course it didn't so it wasn't. Ues, you can dig out a few extremists who think that their pet system of theology is the only one and everyone who doesn't subscribe to it in every detail is a vile heretic and doomed to perdition. In fact you can find thousands of them (and not just among Protestants, or even especially among Protestants) But the majority of Reformed and other mainstream Protestant and evangelical and fundamentalist Christians are not in that camp.

You want evidence? Listen to the soundtrack. Seriously, look at the words of popular hymns and choruses. Probably a better clue to what the people in the churches actually belive, or to the devotions they find spiritually helpful, than the writings of theologias are.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hmmmm ... yes, well, sort of ...

For what it's worth, I think John Stott went a long towards rescuing PSA from the rather caricatured populist versions of it that exist. But I suspect Ken's being too optimistic here ... throughout evangelicalism one hears rather forced and tortured court-room analogies and all manner of rather sentimental and sloppy presentations of PSA.

I'm not sure that contemporary worship songs and choruses are that helpful either - although there are some exceptions ...

Where I would agree with ken is that most evangelicals do tend to use a mixed model where PSA is probably the dominant note but not the only one ... there are elements of Christus Victor and other theories/models in most evangelical circles these days.

All that said, and I don't mean this to be patronising, for the average evangelical in the pews or the comfy seats PSA IS the Gospel ... and a rather crude form of PSA at that.

--------------------
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
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
All that said, and I don't mean this to be patronising, for the average evangelical in the pews or the comfy seats PSA IS the Gospel ... and a rather crude form of PSA at that.

This was certainly my experience, as a member of an Assemblies of God and then a Vineyard church. I wasn't even aware of the other ways of thinking about the atonement until I heard about Steve Chalke's 'cosmic child abuse' comments from his book The Lost Message of Jesus (published in 2003 but I don't think I picked up on his comments straight away). And I'm quite a keen reader, so I should think my experience was not unusually sheltered, in terms of exposure to non-PSA atonement theories.

--------------------
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
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Indeed - yes, I'd say your experience was pretty typical, South Coast Kevin. As much as I admire ken and appreciate his posts, I do think he regards the wider evangelical scene through rose-tinted spectacles at times.

I'm certainly not out to diss it but when I hear ken wax lyrical about how nuanced and balanced evangelical Anglicanism is or other forms of evangelicalism are, I tend to think ... where's he been living for the last 30 years?

I've heard an Anglican vicar in these parts preaching that PSA is the ONLY true way to understand the atonement and one must have some reservations about the genuinely Christian standing of those who don't hold it ...

In fact, I've heard far more 'fundamentalist' things preached from Anglican pulpits in this part of the world than I have ever heard from Baptist Union pulpits and lecterns.

--------------------
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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  ...  9  10  11 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools